None of which contradicts my point, that the output's flaws are things the users themselves don't notice.
For example:
> The software was not asked to produce a picture of an impossible waterfall that couldn't exist in our physical world.
And, given my lack of knowledge of waterfall geology, I have no idea why that's impossible.
> her dress is missing a critical strap
Her left shoulder? I've seen real dresses where one of those slips off sideways for whatever reason. It's like the dress version of self-opening flies.
If you meant something else, I missed it.
I do see the seed pod; but (perhaps due to so many photographers using fill lighting or photoshop, I don't know) I see nothing wrong with the lighting.
I see nothing noteworthy about the lacework either, but I wouldn't expect to as a guy whose total knowledge of things like that is "they are often intricate and frilly".
There are oftentimes things I can indeed spot in GenAI images, when I make them I often find it best to make four at a time, pick the one that was closest to what I wanted, then highlight the errors and do img2img for another cycle, for a dozen repetitions, to get what I want.
But most people don't look that closely.
It's like this: https://xkcd.com/1015/