I see it pragmatically. Most of the "AI" games on Itch would not even exist, if not for AI. Similar to game engines. Single developers usually cannot program a game from scratch. Or have the budget to commission art. Being able to do art and code is rare. Engines helped for the coding. Stock images, things like Blender and other tools for the art. And lately AI generated images. Someone familiar with generating code has an easier time figuring out how to operate an AI system. It is not that easy as some people think. I like to compare it to photography. A photographer can't draw and only clicks a button - to the lay person. Suddenly everyone has a digital camera in their pockets and everyone's a photographer.
Attacking AI for the origin of the training data is short sighted. The outcome will not go away. It will be improved, and probably legally and morally cleansed. Or there will be a procedural gen AI. Anyhow, there still we be a method for lay persons to create images "by click on a button".
For games and bigger studios, they do have a budget. They better use a professional to create their content. There I have little tolerance for AI usage. They are not lay persons. They are not hobby devs that try to make pocket money or become a professional.
And I think that many people think so, if I judge by the popularity of games. Exactly because AI is so recogniseable when a lay person does it, you spot images and text right away.
But if I were to see a disclosure that says, we did some boring sub routines with AI helpers in the code, meh, who cares. If they say, they wrote the plot with AI ... that is a different beast. If it is not an experimental game or some such, I would rather not read that.
But currently there is no distinction between AI assisted or generated, so all this is moot. And people would probably try to stretch any definition to their advantage.