One thing I don't like about this article is that it's showing singular examples of Dall-E's failures, when Dall-E really produces 8 possible answers per text p

One thing I don't like about this article is that it's showing singular examples of Dall-E's failures, when Dall-E really produces 8 possible answers per text prompt (and more if you iterate further). You can cherry pick the worst of the batch and write an article about how bad it is just as, I suppose, you could write an article about the best of each batch and how good it is. However, the fact that multiple drafts are created is similar to the way humans work when doing creative work. So I think it's more instructive to look at the successes. I'm sure if we chose any genius in human history and analyzed their life's work, we'd find tons of failure and false starts and bad attempts. But we don't let those failures detract from their later success. However, in analyzing AI, you can quickly jump to that kind of "it has to be perfect or its fake" analysis and I think it's a flawed way of looking at things. Okay, so the author had to iterate on a couple of examples. But look at the speed. Most of these examples would take a human a day to a week of labor, for each one. The fact you can rattle off almost any random text prompt like "draw me a walrus in the style of pointillism with a fake looking mustache" and that it can accommodate such requests in one second is absolutely stunning.