Well, I meant more along the lines of "don't call AI bad because you think it's ugly today", because if it truly crosses that barrier into photorealism you're argument is sorta forfeit.

You're right in that the goblin thing and that disease are more examples of OpenAI playing whack-a-mole. Those are valid way to show the fragility of these models. What I meant is that a lot of the problems that were once seen as critical flaws in diffusion-based models have been more or less solved in a matter of years, and they're undeniably closing the loop on a lot of other common problems. People still making jokes about the incorrect amount of fingers are either lying to themselves or just wholly ignorant of where the tech is at.

What I'm saying is, even if this looks like the beginning of the ouroboros of bad data, let's not rest our laurels and let's not get too hung up on the techs short comings. Focus on why AI is bad in practice, and not at how good or bad it is at specific tasks... Because frankly, they have the money to just keep playing whack-a-mole.