I guess I've confused the issue with the Banksy example. Forget about that. Say I want to take a picture of a robin on the first day of spring. I take a picture

I guess I've confused the issue with the Banksy example. Forget about that. Say I want to take a picture of a robin on the first day of spring. I take a picture of my deck with the robin sitting on it. This software knows I'm in my house looking out at my deck. It knows what my deck looks like. It doesn't know that there's a robin there at that moment, what exact location it's in, how big it is, etc, so it's not going to be able to reproduce that. Maybe I could carefully explain to the software, "there's a male robin in this exact location and pose on the deck" and it could generate one, but why would I want to do that instead of just having a regular camera? What does this do that I can't do with a camera? It sounds like a way more complicated, processing-intensive method to achieve an inferior result. It's a solution in search of a problem. It's not like decent cameras are prohibitively expensive, seeing as we've managed to include one in basically every phone now. Most of the pictures I'd want to take are of something unique. Software may be able to figure where I'm standing, what permanent features are nearby, what the weather is like, what the people I'm with look like, but it's not going to know the transient features, like there's a lady with a weird looking hat in the background that I wanted to capture. So, what's the point?