Trace any light ray through the scene, and you will see they are bending in ways that light does not.
I'm sure we could teach a world model about light, but this image model fundamentally does not understand how light behaves (which is one of the primary things an artist needs to understand).
Based on current trends I would not be at all surprised if LLMs working with tools, SVGs and looking at their own work get there before diffusion models. I've stopped keeping up with the image models so maybe I'm underestimating the progress but I dropped out because they were so frustratingly bad at composition and integrating details together.
That whale image makes me think that the situation hasn't improved as much as I'd expected. It is a really cool idea and a pretty picture, but the whale looks a lot like it is flying over the top of some sort of huge glass dome on the ground.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Long before generative AI, unpleasant nerds would poop on fun images by claiming they could "just tell" that they were altered in photoshop. Today I'm seeing a complaint that the path tracing from the multi-layered stained glass into the cloud simulation is not as accurate as a human would have painted by hand. And, that apparently makes us grumpy.
There have been unending examples of people liking an image until informed it was made by AI. Then, suddenly they see all sorts of fine-detail excuses to dislike it. And, of people calling out "obviously AI" problems in the works of human master artists when someone lies and tells them it was generated.
I'm not seeing any difference in the discussion here. The whale is a bit overly high-frequency. The owl is fine. The guy at the computer would be considered great if a human made it. The travel ad is bland. The balloon letters are fine.
None of these are "terrible eye sores". Some people don't like AI generated imagery as a process. Seeing generated images make them feel upset. That's reasonable. But, claiming these images in isolation are objectively awful regardless of their source is reactionary. If any of them were made by a person using Photoshop and/or Blender, they would be received with a resounding "Meh" or better.
When you forgo process the odds that you'll make good art drop to 0. Tool use is a much better path forward for self driving, artistic computer than big data. Images 2.6 only has use as a tool.