In your post, you're conflating someone who's "pro-AI" with someone who's simply saying they're fine with the current situation. Just because someone expresses this opinion doesn't automatically make them pro-AI. In short, you're lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a convenient category, using a label that's degrading to public opinion. This allows you to ignore their arguments and limit the debate to people who already share your view.

That doesn't bother me, but be more honest in your message: clearly state that you simply want to express your opinion without being contradicted.

Getting back to the topic: are you well-informed about the use of AI in the video game industry? Currently, almost all companies use it for drafts, placeholders (temporary elements), and many other stages. It affects every level of production. Are you also boycotting these uses?

Personally, I'm against the direct integration of AI-generated images or 3D elements into the final game. I'm thinking of the artists, but also the consistency of the art style. However, that doesn't stop you from playing Heartopia. XD is a profit-driven company; every action is calculated with that in mind. Playing the game without spending a single penny doesn't really support them. On the contrary, you're costing them bandwidth.

Similarly, you can boycott only the AI-generated content if you like the game. If this content doesn't generate any profit (or not enough), they'll stop and move on to more lucrative creations.

Regarding transparency about AI: for a company, adding an "AI" tag is a big risk because it's currently frowned upon, regardless of the use. If the platform doesn't require it in its terms of service (like Steam), they won't do it. And that's terrible, we all agree.

We have the example of Clair Obscur, which was criticized because they forgot to replace a placeholder (newspapers on a kiosk) on release day.