I'm focusing on the bike part here because, as a bike geek, I could draw one from memory that's correct in all details. But to a non-bikie that's more difficult than you'd think. I can't find the picture gallery right now but an article about it, which links another article:
So the fact that the AI models screw this up so badly is understandable. Sure, they screw up in ways that humans wouldn't, such as the beak backwards in one of the pictures (pointy end toward the bird!) because they don't know or care about something every human would know: What a beak is for and what it looks like in general. Or for that matter the biodynamics of how a pelican's long, spindly legs could, in fact, work a pair pedals. But ask me to draw a pelican from memory, and have a good laugh (if you're better at it than me) because to me, they're just kind of a peripheral vision, pink abstraction, not something I focus on understanding. And that's what they are to the AI model too.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240419001426/https://www.wired...
So the fact that the AI models screw this up so badly is understandable. Sure, they screw up in ways that humans wouldn't, such as the beak backwards in one of the pictures (pointy end toward the bird!) because they don't know or care about something every human would know: What a beak is for and what it looks like in general. Or for that matter the biodynamics of how a pelican's long, spindly legs could, in fact, work a pair pedals. But ask me to draw a pelican from memory, and have a good laugh (if you're better at it than me) because to me, they're just kind of a peripheral vision, pink abstraction, not something I focus on understanding. And that's what they are to the AI model too.