"[...] limitation brings creativity"
Yes, and i'd go even further saying that limitations make creativity necessary. And it's not just limited to art. In my previous workplace, we had to figure out how to get a heavy ass electrical engine through a window using a vertical crane. We ended up using a wooden pole as a balance scale (pic related), a creative solution only done because of the limitations that were at hand.
I also mentioned in a previous comment early video-games with 8-bit graphics and sound. Or how pixel art used to look differently on old CRT screens. What's interesting about the latter is that they took the specific grid-like look of the CRT and turned that limitation into its strength. That's why older games have that vibe that new pixel art can't create - it's because the new pixel art doesn't have to look good on a CRT anymore.

"[...] cause a lot of stress and pressure and just make us all more miserable"
That could very well be the case. I mean the same thing happened with the internet. It's become very wide-spread, and even though it's useful, it has made a lot of people that use it too much very miserable.

When it comes to art, i like to think of AI art as a replacement for stock images. You need an image of 5 people in an office setting discussing something? Here you go! I think these are the companies that are going to get the shit end of the stick, but it's also difficult for me to call those people artists.

So here's what i'm wondering: are AI produced images a threat to artists? On one side AI supplies a lot of certain type of demand, and on the other, it can help by serving as a contrast for people that create real, meaningful art. And if you can't tell the difference, is it really meaningful?

I'm not an artist myself. I suck at drawing and would rather mod games or use pre-existing assets. AI is a tool that can help people, that are being gate-kept by how poorly they can draw, to express themselves by trying to make a game.

Companies are the first to implement AI assets in their games because they have the resources and the know-how to do so. Plus, they try to cut costs at every corner. The first computers could only be operated by extremely computer-savvy people. You had to go through an entire arsenal of algorithms just to send an e-mail. I think that anything that makes complex processes more available to the common people is a good thing. Yeah, i dislike Macs and anything apple-related, but they introduced smart-phones - something that's being used now by everyone i know including myself.

AI makes certain things easier. But people will lose their jobs. A ton of telephone operators got laid off when the automatic telephone system got introduced. But has that invention been a bad thing? I'd argue that it has been a net-benefit for society.
Technology introduces change. People don't like change.

Doesn't feel good to be insulted, does it?

Dont worry, i like to throw insults around too every once in a while, so i'm not better.

"I don't agree that it's a good tool, chatgpt for example is a notorious asskisser that makes people delusional, and it more often than not gives conflicting wrong info."
Is this something you've come across yourself or just read on the internet?

I'm studying electrical engineering. Recently it explained that a -3dB level is at a frequency where active and reactive resistances have an equal value, and explained in great detail why that is giving me an epiphany.
It helped me set up an FPGA
It fixed a very specific bug when applying an integral to a function in MATLAB by using arrayfun()

It's a good tool to have. And the only way you could be convinced otherwise is by using it.

Think of it like a hammer. You can't expect a hammer to replace a human to do all the work. You still need to know how to wield it, and also when not to.
It provides surface-level knowledge, though that "surface level" is getting deeper. it's not omnipotent, and so, people using AI models as lawyers give it a bad name

This just doesn't have the same ring to it

Looks like i struck a nerve

What an awful thing to say as an artist. Expression for the sake of expression is almost the definition of art. Are you against people expressing themselves?

Games are unoptimized because they can be unoptimized. It didn't start with AI, it was already becoming a thing when hardware limitations disappeared. Suddenly your game size wasn't limited to a 64MB cartrige. Better hardware is how we started getting 100 GB triple-A games.
The same argument against AI can be used against companies developing better hardware. Doesn't fit that well in the latter.

"AI can generate missing frames and make games run smooth regardless of hardware (which still have to be higher-mid to high tier to run it properly)"
I fail to see how that is an issue

"another thing is it absolutely fvcks up art direction of games, making characters look like totally different characters"
I'll give you that one. Same thing happened when older games started being ported or emulated on modern systems. Pixel art looked more realistic when shown on a CRT screen (pic related).

People work with what they've got. They move around the limitations of the systems. It was the most prominent when games had to be made with 8-bit colour or sound.

"which is my personal pet peeve as an artist"
I've got my own pet peeves too, so i'm not arguing against opinions.

"AI is being literally hamfisted into every damn thing"
Yeah and that makes people hate AI even when it's beneficial. I'm not denying that because this is what my original argument is also based on.

"nobody asked for it, nobody really needs it"
Nobody "needs" a power-saw. Power-saws make people lazy because of how easy it is to use them. You can use a handsaw instead like the good old times, plus it strengthens your arms.
This is how many arguments sound like to me. Yes, you don't "need" AI, but many of the things it does are helpful. It's like the new wikipedia. You remember how wikipedia was in the older days, right? Not 100% reliable, but helpful enough on surface level knowledge to not be dismissed. Same with AI.

"it makes GPUs and RAM much more expensive than they should be"
Yeah, it does. My hopes are that it's because of a sudden spike in demand. That is going to keep being an issue if the development in AI becomes exponential to where the demand for RAMs and GPUs is never going to be reached. But it should reach a ceiling where the development of it is not going to be worth the potential benefits. Emphasis on "should."

"relying solely on AI is plain and simple a mistake which will be catastrophic for humanity. it's a tool, and should be treated as such, not as some end-all omnipotent being"
Sure, it's a tool, and a good tool at that. The fact that people are worried that it's going to be everywhere just goes to show how good of a tool it is.
The same thing happened with metal-lathes, cars and the internet. Good tools get used. I'd like to argue that the pros outweigh the cons. And it does have cons. In this case i'm talking about DLSS 5. If you want to have your game be as photorealistic looking as possible, and you can do it with a few presses of buttons, then why should people be against that?
If you're worried about your future as an artist, then you can still make art. Darkest Dungeon has an unique artstyle. So does Return of the Obra Dinn. If you have a vision, you can still express it. What AI does is it opens the gates for people who aren't good at art to express themselves creatively too.

If you don't agree with me then fine. But i hope you see that i'm not just being a troll here.

>uses greentext on hugelol unironically

Justify your argument, Mr. Ad-Hominem

Everything about the way that you deflect screams "parental issues." At first i thought your issue is an emotionally absent father, but the more i consider it the more i lean towards you having mommy issues. Spaghetti carbonara is one of the easiest pasta recipes. And you speak like someone who doesn't clean his own room or cook his own meals. Unlike you, i'm not joking.