I'm not perverting any argument, you're just arguing something completely orthogonal to the point people above are making. We all understand creativity and that having more control and agency in a project is a good thing.

My argument isn't framing, it's reality. Time is a resource and the creative process is irrelevant when you've got bills to pay. The vast majority of people don't have the luxury to maintain a passion project, much less the chance to recoup a portion of what they poured into it.

Yes, in a vacuum with no regard for money or other responsibilities, the creative output is better for working through those problems. There are examples of this: Transport Tycoon, Undertale, Stardew Valley, Minecraft, etc... Usually games made in spare time over years by someone with a well paying tech job or game dev experience.

These indie games having success is very much the exception. The growth of the indie scene came from the wide availability of dev tooling and distribution platforms. Cutting out those hurdles massively expanded the pool of people who could now make games, thus we get more gems.

Not everyone needs to use Unreal Engine or Steam, but having them as an option is the only way that many games get made. That doesn't have any correlation to quality, they can be masterpieces or shovel ware. Gen Ai is the same, it just lowers another barrier of entry.

The choice isn't "Gen Ai or flop". The choice is in how you allocate your limited resources to make your project. It could add no value to a small project or be the key to unlocking a larger project. If your goal is to make some money from your efforts, it can be great at adding that veneer of polish that gets eyes on your game. I'm not one to judge someone for that just because lazy people can also do lazy things with it.