The reason is simple: AI cannot have passion.
That's not a good reason to be indifferent. A lot of things have no passion. In fact, all things have no passion. It goes with the attribute of being a thing.
You can ask if we should use a certain thing for a certain task. And why, or why not. Should we use guns to feel secure? Should we use cars that burn fossil fuels to commute? Should you use a spoon to open a can? Should we use tools to do work? What about if those tools are unethical? What if those tools make human work obsolete? What if that work was art, a thing that makes humans human?
There are valid concerns about AI and they should be discussed.
The pragmatic view on games is, that games with AI art usually look boring and all alike. Same with texts generated by AI. You can tell a lot of profile and even game descriptions were not written by an amateur developer, but most likely the result of a prompt. It is low effort and cheap.
On the other hand, with AI you can overcome a barrier. Can't draw, have no money, wanna make a game with images that still had your influence? AI can help there.
"AI"'s thoughs on this are this, btw:
AI should not be used in the creation of video games because it can undermine human creativity, reduce job opportunities for artists and developers, and lead to generic, less emotionally resonant content. Relying on AI may also result in ethical concerns around originality and intellectual property.
AI should be used in the creation of video games because it can speed up development, reduce costs, and assist with complex tasks like procedural content generation, adaptive gameplay, and realistic NPC behavior. It enhances creativity by handling repetitive work, allowing developers to focus on storytelling and innovation.