I believe it's important that human artists' livelihoods are not taken away by AI-art tools. AI-art generators are just a tool, and can be used in some contexts without adversely affecting human artists.
My personal rules for artwork are:
1. If I can hand draw the artwork myself, I will.
I'm no graphic designer, but if the style of the game can get away with basic illustrations, I will attempt to do the art myself. For example, I did this for Fruit Folly because the art style was deliberately basic and cartoonish.
2. Otherwise I'll try to use human-made art assets
If my basic illustration skills don't cut the mustard, I will next explore if I can use pre-made art assets drawn by humans (not AI!). If I can find free artwork online, great, but if I can find game assets for a price that doesn't greatly exceed the expected return I'd get from sales of my game, I will buy it. For example, I purchased assets from an artist named Rexard to use in Quabble. If the usage terms of the assets require me to credit the artist(s), I will.
3. Otherwise, I will use AI-generated artwork
Sometimes, I can't find any appropriate human-made art assets that fit the requirements of my game. In which case, I may investigate using AI-generated artwork. I have never used - and never intend to use - AI-generated art "as is", as I will always further edit it to fit into my game style. For example, I did this for Nine Tails - the cats and backgrounds were AI-generated, but I tweaked them and added all of the remaining playing card elements myself.
Even then;
- I will only use AI-generated artwork for prototyping or for small projects that I don't expect many sales from (I make games for a hobby, not income). The above transparency disclaimer will always be placed on the shop page.
- Should I design a game that's targeting mass sale (for example, a Kickstarter campaign or having a game manufactured via a publisher) I will always ensure the game's artwork is commissioned to a human artist and never produced by AI.