(Dwarf Fortress is the one procedural game I know - besides maybe its more faithful clones - which isn't static. But the procedural generation there is also mostly not incremental, it generates the whole world beforehand and only some of the fill-in details are incrementally generated).
The holy grail has to be a graph-based refinement/embellishment system, where it generates just the nodes, temporally and spatially, which matter for the situation the player is in.
Rimworld is interesting here, as it is what I would consider a DF style game. And I would have said the same for it, except that the latest expansion (Oddessy) added space ships that you can build, and fly to another area. While fun this has made the procedural generation show its weaknesses.
(That said, DF world gen is top notch, but probably not quite as good as it may seem due to what I mentioned.)
With the advent of LLMs, AI-autocomplete, and agent-based development workflows, my ability to deliver reliable, high-quality code is restored and (arguably) better. Personally, I love the "hallucinations" as they help me fine-tune my prompts, base instructions, and reinforce intentionality; e.g. is that >really< the right solution/suggestion to accept? It's like peer programming without a battle of ego.
When analyzing problems, I think you have to look at both upsides and downsides. Folks have done well to debate the many, many downsides of AI and this tends to dominate the conversation. Probably thats a good thing.
But, on the flip side, I personally advocate hard for AI from the point-of-view on accessibility. I know (more-or-less) exactly what output I'm aiming for and control that obsessively, but it's AI and my voice at the helm instead of my fingertips.
I also think it incorrect to look at it from a perspective of "does the good outweigh the bad?". Relevant, yes, but utilitarian arguments often lead to counter-intuitive results and end up amplifying the problems they seek to solve.
I'd MUCH rather see a holistic embrace and integration of these tools into our ecosystems. Telling people "no AI!" (even if very well defined on what that means) is toothless against people with little regard for making the world (or just one specific repo) a better place.
The accessibility angle is really important here. What we need is a way to stop people who make contributions they don't understand and/or can not vouch they are the author for (the license question is very murky still, and no what the US supreme court said doesn't matter here in EU). This is difficult though.