Oh, I see that any comment defending AI tools gets downvoted, so let me explain my point in more detail.
If you're developing a game for commercial purposes, you'll face tasks like:
1. Adapting your game for different platforms (web, mobile, etc.).
2. Long-term support of the game (fixing bugs, releasing quick patches, and so on).
3. Handing the project over to someone else who has no experience with Construct 3.
Many people are afraid that AI will take away the creative side of game development. But there's also a huge amount of routine work that has nothing to do with creativity and simply wastes developers' time.
If you're completely against using AI tools in Construct 3, chances are that game development is more of a hobby for you than a profession.
No one is arguing that AI doesn't do anything useful. The issue is the cost. What is the price we are paying for these conveniences? As a society, as working people, as creatives, and not to mention the environment.
I would guess that many downvotes come from people who recognize that AI is all but certain to have a net negative impact on humanity, regardless of what benefits it provides along the way.
It's also important to think of things on a larger scale, rather than an individual one. If every developer's productivity increases across the board from AI, then no actual benefit has been provided. Games in that case must simply be produced at a faster rate as the new baseline, which doesn't actually help anyone.
Increasing the rate of production also lessens the value of what is being produced, since the demand for those products does not increase alongside it. So professionals can have a negative view of AI just as much as a hobbyist, for this reason and many more.
For AI to be a positive advancement overall, I think many fundamental changes in human civilization will have to occur, and the problem is all the humans who will suffer along the way to make that happen, if it's even possible at all.