Maybe I am just terrible at prompting - but so far, while very impressed with the tech in principle, I have found image generators useless for the kind of images I was interested in, and that problem persists with this edition. When I am looking to generate art, I am looking to make something new that I have not seen, and over and over, had the impression that a human would have understood my desire and created something novel that matched, while the AI just would not. :(

I struggle to get the AI to produce attractive and functional non-binary/androgynous/queer characters in the setting I want, and suspect that this is an issue for any depiction of beauty and exploration beyond the mainstream. Attractive is seen as synonymous with marked sexual dimorphism, e.g. hyperfeminine characters - unless you specify against it, it keeps drifting here, even if you starting characters are famous for their androgyny (like Ruby Rose), it will add long hair, huge breasts, blush, and remove muscle definition and prominent facial bones, as well as clothing; I can ask for a picture of her in literal armour, and still get cleavage so low it looks like her tits will fall out and she is just asking to be stabbed there. And if I negative prompt those out, I just get an amorphous blob, or, at best, Justin bloody Bieber. If I manage something somewhat acceptable, the moment I add further unusual constraints on style and context it collapses again. This is also why these AI generators that insert your image into fantasy settings were very popular with people fitting the binary, and very alienating for those that did not; they drift any input into mainstream attractiveness. There are images of real people that capture what I am looking for, yet this AI can't - it reproduces the very mainstream I want to make art against.

The fact that the AI cannot count also drives me nuts. For a DnD campaign, I play a druid who retains eight spider-like eyes through all wildshapes, and loved the idea of bringing sample images for the campaign. Eight, not ten. So I basically want eyes like this https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bb/e6/4d/bbe64ddd3308cb4c2409bf103b023768.jpg incorporated into various animal designs, on their heads. But it keeps miscounting eyes, giving me too many or too few, plonking them in various parts of the picture rather than incorporating them into the head design, and the designs keep retaining two human eyes on top of everything else. 

And then especially when I want to combine this with a challenging animal design - say, a Deinonychus which is scientifically accurate (feathers, outturned wrists) but does not look dorky - it goes completely of the rails. If you are interested in dinosaurs, the depiction of their wrists as broken in most movies is bothersome, but having the AI correct it requires it to understand wrist position, when it can barely get the number of fingers or possible turns of joints in regular humans right.

I also struggle with getting contradictory themes to work; e.g. having a figure incorporate horror and scary elements, but in a setting where it is acting protective and loving, albeit with dark undertones (say a character like Schaffa Guardian Warrant in the Fifth Season).

The more complex it gets, the less one gets out of it. E.g. for a different problem, I was very intrigued by German rye demon ("Roggenmuhme") mythology - demons that were invented to scare children from playing in the rye fields and ruining the crops. They are strange mixes - they retain characteristics of earlier fertility Gods in that they are overtly sexual, but to trick the children into mistaking farming machinery for the demons, they also incorporate a lot of metal parts, and finally, in acknowledgement of how old the stories are, the demons are elderly women, and of course the whole imagery is tweaked towards horror. This comes together into something terrifying in a unique way - long, scythe-like arms that end in irons claws dragging children's heads and limbs, breasts sagging almost to the ground and leaking poisonous tar, and this whole cannibalistic creature hiding in a rye field, so at first glance, you think you are seeing machinery discarded on a peaceful field, and on the second, you spot that the shadows connect and that something is lurking in there, about to catch you. I wanted to see that in a picture. But when given the term, AI keeps giving me images of rye mills (Roggenmühle); and when I describe the thing itself, the closest I get to is an overt, creepy looking old woman in a field with longer than usual fingers, nothing lurking and at the border from human to machine, or elderly yet overtly sexual, let alone all those things at once.

I am also super bothered by the fact that the physics and ecology of the images is off, because they are generated by someone who has not experienced reality. You ask moss to grow over part of your picture - but it doesn't grow where moisture would collect, has no relation to the location of the sun or direction of wind. Or you ask for "moonrise at midnight" - and if the moon rises at midnight, it should be a half moon because of the moon phases. But it is a full moon. 

All in all, image generation gives me far more of an "The AI really does not understand what it is doing" vibe than text generation currently does, which I find surprising - I would have expected the opposite, with text being more off.

Thanks for sharing the link