Let's go back to the topic: The disclosure is not about using AI tools. The disclosure is about generating content using AI tools.

Quoting: KROMOf course. It's a tool. Nobody stops you from taking the horse, but I'll be probably faster than you using my car.

There's absolutely no difference between generating code & generating assets. Both is created by a tool which serves to be more efficient. Both can & should be disclosed but Valve made this exempt because they know their customers will go crazy if basically every game becomes an AI game.

Quoting: EikeThat example seems to be quite accurate to me:
The tools used to write the code are not an ingredient of the game. Unlike e.g. the assets. Which seems quite close to what Valve is asking for to be declared.

Obviously, the code the AI is generating is an ingredient of the game. Why should this be exempt from the disclosure?

How about Photoshop? How much AI tooling is allowed?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPWell, yes.
You'd have to enforce open sourcing everything and even THEN you could almost never be certain.
Unenforceable rules are pointless.

Rules are there to be complied with. Usually there is a punishment if someone is violating a rule. I don't see why this wouldn't work here, too. If it's not directly evident then it'll require someone reporting the violation. Happens in law enforcement all the time.