Dude, amazing! The images are beautiful and it's 1000 times better when you know they're real and not CGI/AI.
Fine, but is still art photography with heavy processing. Not to criticize the amazing work of Rod Prazeres, who has now commented on this thread.
If by "not real", you mean "you removed the stars so it no longer reflect reality!", then real photograph doesn't exist. For example, OP uses narrow-band filters, and it's common to map H-alpha wavelength, which is red, to green in the images. Does that make it unreal?
In the end, astrophotography is more art than science; the goal is more about producing aesthetically-pleasing images than doing photometry. Photographers must take some artistic license.
“StarNet is a neural network that can remove stars from images in one simple step leaving only the background. More technically, it is a convolutional residual net with encoder-decoder architecture and with L1, Adversarial and Perceptual losses.”
If you remove the stars you have to fill it in with what is there..behind the star, but you cant possibly know.... It could be another star, a black hole etc...Since you have to make it nice to display movie credits, you are going to fill in the space with genai images similar to the rest of the background. You might draw curved to the right when in reality if you observe from behind the star, it curves to the left...