I think the differentiator will be a novel experience and that can only created by novel human characters. The last kind of the hill, standing over the kill, will be a author. What a ironic circle..

There is no evidence to support such claim, might as well the last king of the hill will be those who can find one amazing story among the miriads created by AI and pretend it was created by him/her.

Anyone can draw a portrait on a canvas. da Vinci wasn't the first to do so, nor the last to have become famous in doing.

Generative AI is just a tool, and best users of a tool is those most experienced and driven. Not angry, fanatic, self-proclaimed-anti-luddites.

Your assertion fails even the slightest scrutinity, I* was able to create this extremely beautiful piece (https://i.imgur.com/4AOHe6A.png) just minutes after installing some stable-diffusion-GUI and I'm neither experienced or driven, AI is not just a tool, its way more close to the definition of robot (or bot) than the definition of tool; and its just beguinning, those models are gonna get better and better, including a better understanding of the nuances of what its being asked for it based on context clues (e.g. previous prompts, tags, etc) making it even less important to become "experienced" or "driven" as the models themselves favor those audiences.

* For the most possible loose definition of "I"

I...suspect your Mk1 discriminator could use a few thousand more epochs of training. Those SD kids are spending hours trying to pull a best seed for prompts, and then not getting much interests(public and financial) back.

Apparently these image generators are starting to be used in those industries for ideas and mockups - by first drafting conceptual arts using generators, and then tasking humans to completely redraw everything by hand. Final images contain nothing generated, so no copyright issues, no uncanny valleys like found in that image, no professional job security concerns. That's what it's doing. Supercharging the best, giving false hope to the rest.

For now. I don't see it staying that way.

The real division between games and games will, as it always has been, be if the game is fun or not. Nothing else matters. If it's not fun, it'll flop and disappear, some quicker than others. But if it's fun, people will continue to play it.

This doesn't ring true, just for example "Among Us" sales only skyrocket after a famous streamer picked it up, the sales were below average before that specific event that happened by mere luck, and it was just as fun before he made it popular.

this elides the discovery problem somewhat.

This is not very much different than the current state of the indie market.

Graphical fidelity isn't the problem today already. You have Epic Megascans, online asset libraries where you can buy crazy high quality models for dirt cheap and whatnot. However, the new visually high quality games that come out (and have a download size of 20+ GB for a top down game) don't necessarily do well despite a marketing budget. In contrast, games with very little budget but a unique (and sometimes crappy) artstyle and compelling gameplay loop can do crazy well if they scratch an itch and/or are good at talking to the press. I mean, look at Brotatos artstyle... just... look at it.