AI developers are the factory builders who aren’t much different than the line workers other than receiving higher pay for being less likely as a demographic to be children, women, and marginalized immigrants.
This sentence is a bit hard to parse, so maybe I misunderstood, but I am pretty sure that “AI developers are paid more for not being children” is true only in very convoluted sense that (most) children not good in AI development. I suspect the proportion of immigrants working in AI development in countries with comparatively weak CS education (such as US) is actually quite high, although I do not have the numbers.
customers want to know which parts were made in these programs, for quality and moral reasons.
I disagree with forced labeling of any product for “moral reasons”. This is a huge can of worms and very prone to abuse.
Now, quality reasons are different matter. It is certainly true that many games containing some AI content are junk. However, same is true for games without AI content. Usage of AI is maybe statistically noticeable signal of quality, but I doubt it, especially due to the fact that many developers may not even realize they used some piece of AI-assisted technology somewhere.
Voluntary labeling of products is of course fine. Like “proudly made using only X”. As I random example, my game is coded from scratch with no game engine, and I would like to label it as such, but of course that does not mean in any way that I am somehow against game engines.
If honest disclosure makes the project look bad to everyone, including the people who don’t care how it was made, then the project is that bad.
I disagree with the usage of word “everyone” here. First, people who don’t care will, by the very definition, not care, so it will not look bad for them. Second, “everyone” is still very suspicious, assuming unanimous bias across all the potential users.
We can re-state this statement more correctly as “If honest disclosure makes the project look bad to some people who care, then the project is that bad.”. And I do not see how we can reasonably support such a statement.
Sorry if paragraph above sounds like sophistry, but that was extremely general statement, so I am forced to respond in extremely general way.