I just re-read through the interview Cocks did with Venturebeat and honestly, the Dicebreaker article is pretty on point from a professional perspective, if a little but "click-baity" in the phrasing.
I've spent a lot of time over the last few years looking at AI and how it can be used
ethically within the TTRPG industry and, almost without exception, any time I talk to someone in an executive position (including when I was at WotC) they are in favour of just doing the thing that makes the most money, in the shortest amount of time.
The attitude is very much,
"Other people are going to do it, so we need to, or we will be left behind," and I find that very telling in terms of the approach these people have towards the creative folks who have worked hard to build the amazing games & stories that comprise the TTRPG industry. People are considered resources, a dollar amount on a spreadsheet.
They rely on people largely being bad at holding people to account, if doing so causes us inconvenience.
That means they'll absolutely do the thing and many people will be angry, but the thing will have been done, and then others will do it, until it becomes frequent enough that it's just how things are.
As to AI itself? It's not going away.
The Dicebreaker article sums up the current position well with this line:
We had a brief moment to pause and develop AI in a manner that considered the rights and compensation of human artists, but Silicon Valley adherents sprinted right past it.
There absolutely are people who have worked, and are working, to ensure AI is used ethically, however funding is significantly more likely to be given to those who are reckless with ethics, because it's a more profitable route for shareholders & investors.
AI is already impacting our lives a huge amount, from automated responses on social media, through customer services and content on the internet, to systems that trade on the stock market. I'm not going to dive into the larger picture here though - /r/controlproblem is a good source if you're interested, but errs on the alarmist side.