Although I don't see AI in game art becoming accepted by the wider public any time soon, and definitely not by the indie crowd.

I've also been thinking about this for animation. I foresee cheap limited animation (sliding layers, only mouth moving, etc) being replaced by incoherent un-/barely edited AI output instead.

(Until now, I went with the standard approach: Remember the leading whitespace of the previous line. Then compare with the new line's leading whitespace: If they are the same, then no change in indentation. If the old one is a prefix of the new one, it's an indent. If the new one is a prefix of the old one, it's a dedent. If neither, it's an error)

One could imagine an even smaller subset interpreter. It's an interpreter for a subset of Python, consisting only of the programs that print "Hello World". Since it doesn't do any error checking, for all other programs the output is undefined. Implementing it is very simple: Just ignore the input file, and print "Hello World". As a bonus, it's an interpreter for the subset of "Hello World" programs in all other programming languages too!

The AI arguments I've seen are instead usually justifying it like this: "We're democratizing those skills. You shouldn't have to learn art/writing/coding or pay someone else in order make what you imagine. Therefore, training AI on pirated stuff is worth it for the greater good." So the fact that it will result in artists not getting paid is unavoidable and much harder to ignore in that line of thinking.

Personally, I suspect good writers will adapt in due time, not because they don't want to sound like AI, but because they don't want to sound cliche. Even the ones stubbornly holding on to their em-dashes.

The ones hit hardest will be the mediocre writers, who have always relied on cliches. Their writing will become indistinguishable from reading chatbot output.

At least that's my prediction.

Hmm I don't think that would be enough. I'd expect that would only make the modifications themselves copyrightable, but not the whole modified work including the AI parts.

Compare for example the case where the US copyright office ruled that, when assembling AI-generated images and human-written text into a comic book, only the human-made elements themselves (text, arrangement) get copyright protection, but not the images.

E.g. if you generate an AI photo and color grade it, i expect only the color grading would be protected (if that is even significant enough to be protectable), not the rest. And someone else could re-color-grade the same image without infringing your copyright.

We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.

Although from a security point of view it's still very bad. Every compiler / JIT has bugs, and bugs that let you write to random or arbitrary memory adresses are a rather common kind.

Doesn't really matter for a hobby project though