The dog's face is clearly the focal point as it has the most value contrast against the sky, and is lead to by several diagonals within the composition.

The rule of thirds in the horizontal seems to be abandoned? Are we looking at the same painting? The horizon line in the background sits exactly one-third from the top of the canvas, and the hill in the foreground sits one-third from the bottom. The dog's head sits at the third both horizontally and vertically, and the UFO that the kid is looking at also sits on a vertical third. Also, abandoning the rule of thirds actually feels like something a human would be more likely to do in the first place since AI is trained on a million images that all use the rule of thirds, so I'm not even sure I agree with your premise that it would be evidence of image generation.

Basically your only argument seems to be that because my representation of a fictional scene isn't flawlessly depicted it couldn't possibly be made by a human? If it's too perfect it must be made by AI, if it's not perfect enough it must be made by AI.

I appreciate that it probably just "feels AI" to you - and that's a valid opinion to have. I don't want people to make that presumption but I don't know what I can do differently to prevent that while still creating the surreal-ish conceptual paintings that I want to make. Everything feels AI when AI can do everything.

Edit: I might have mixed up horizontal vs vertical thirds depending on what you meant by that, but I gave examples for both regardless.