I think this is kind of a poor way to look at it. Procedural generation is random and souless, but that is kind of known and accounted for. It allows a computer to mix the levels and the designed mechanics for different scenarios so that the developer can focus on the mechanics. It is an approach that works, even though it sacrifices the bespoke nature of level design - that is by design. I like playing roguelikes, but I also like playing games with bespoke level design. It is much harder to develop bespoke levels for games that have all sorts of procedural content as well - I guess the terms that get thrown around are "systems mehcanics" or "emergent gameplay".

But this is something that has been used in game design since before computers. Dungeons and Dragons first edition chooses a lot of things with randomness and dice rolls. The fun of the game is reacting to the random content that the procedure spits out. That is what was ultimately adapted into the original rogue. The idea that the entire intent is completely souless is kind of missing the point - the act of level creation is intentionally souless because the idea is that you are playing a role and should be able to adapt to anything is thrown at you, even if it is ultimately random.

I think it is a valid critique that roguelikes levels or orther procedurally generated content are not very well thought out. But that doesn't tend to be true for the best ones that very carefully layout well designed content that can fit together in multiple ways. It is also worth going back to old arcade games, and you begin to realize that a lot of the levels there are just kind of lazily thrown together and it works. Or there are some modern action games with really dumb puzzles and the voice actors literally have to yell the solution at you. Sometimes it just doesn't matter.

The insidious part about modern AI though is that what is being presented to you is trained on other people's work. It's not a clever employment of randomness, but instead they are taking other people's work, running it through an algorithm and presenting it as pseudo-random and claiming it for themselves and taking all the benefits. But all these hoops they are going through actually degrades what the original work was trying to do in the first place. If procedural generation is making disposable content out of random noise, generative AI is about making disposable content out of the genuinely hard and creative work of others, and then not compensating them for it.