It's interesting how much of an image can be missing if it gets the overall vibe right. I guessed immediately that these images were all computer-generated, but

It's interesting how much of an image can be missing if it gets the overall vibe right. I guessed immediately that these images were all computer-generated, but they still looked "okay." I certainly didn't notice that the bike had no handlebars, because there was a blob that could sort of be handlebars, maybe. And the missing limbs might just not be visible, maybe? In part, I think it sort-of-works because artists often make abstract images by leaving stuff out. A lot can be wrong with an image and it still gets "artistic license" if it looks painted? It seems similar to GPT-3 generated text, where if you skim it looks okay, but if you attempt to really understand the text, it's nonsense. (And it's similar for a lot of spam websites these days.)