If/When AI gets to the point where it can consistenly beat human players in video games, it will be worldwide news when it first happens, and then the novelty will wear off. See: Chess still going strong.
For the video game market in general, AI will be used by players largely where there are financial incentives (MMO market, CS:GO Skins, etc.), but usage of an AI will most often be socially viewed just like usage of any other performance improvement/script/hack: As a crutch.
Peter Singer, one of the "founders" of effective altruism, argues pretty vehemently in his book "Effective Altruism" that the ends do NOT justify the means. Like you've said, doing that has lead some people to go off the deep end and do some horrifying stuff, so just because you think you can improve the world better than the guy next to you doesn't mean you should take the guy's money.
(Although, I've googled a bit and found a "counter"-example, where Singer argues that in a case where six innocent people could be wrongly accused of murder and killed, you should point at one as the perpetrator if it means only they get killed and the other five ones get let go, therefore saving five lives: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/866768837)
So yes, killing is morally wrong and should never be the mean to your end, but the rest is really muddy. Is stealing from the rich in order to feed the poor a justified mean? Is donating most of your money you make trading off the stock market, where other people have lost that money, a justified mean? Is lobbying against climate-unfriendly companies a justified mean?
For the video game market in general, AI will be used by players largely where there are financial incentives (MMO market, CS:GO Skins, etc.), but usage of an AI will most often be socially viewed just like usage of any other performance improvement/script/hack: As a crutch.