Terry, no!

The lack of artistic value.

(Adding Stellarst0rm's example because I somehow forgot it https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/6gzfra/damn_wish/)

Do you notice how the original sketch version has very different facial expressions for the punch line (if simplistic sketch art) and the AI doesn't clearly convey anything by the younger's facial reaction because the model paints the same "angry/alarm" pattern on both characters? Why is the younger vaguely angry in the AI version? You can make something up like "that's just the style" but...

There is no answer because there is no style because nobody made this. It's just a copy missing a piece of the humor the source had that didn't make it through as statistically relevant even though it DOES contain data for the punchline to observers. Do you see how the next model training on this will actually lose something that's a concrete part of the joke? Let's ignore "soul" and say that it dropped the ball on nonverbal communication in a way that's meaningfully worse to the viewer.

It's true that people will have a hard time articulating why modeling art and language are worse than actually making them, but I don't think their concerns are unfounded. It's slop in my opinion because it loses to napkin art despite having vast resources applied to it. I understand how the difference may seem like a grumpy nitpick but the models can't train off their own output without a buildup of convolutional traces that poison their outputs eventually and break them according to current studies. It's clearly missing SOMETHING intangible and whatever people call it, it's real.

It's similar and I've seen stuff like that before, but it's not the same gag.

Last week I saw a single panel joke about cats exercising with toilet paper treadmills. There were two nearly identical images circulating on Lemmy simultaneously, one being the original and the other one the obvious AI ripoff.

But I appreciate you having a look around