No: it knows what "Jesus" "feet" "washing" "disciple" etc. look like but it doesn't know what they mean. If it understood what they meant it wouldn't have any t

No: it knows what "Jesus" "feet" "washing" "disciple" etc. look like but it doesn't know what they mean. If it understood what they meant it wouldn't have any trouble parsing an unambiguous prompt. The system will "assemble them in the way the author is requesting" if you use an extremely detailed prompt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40217685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40217685 But the reason this prompt is necessary is that the system does not understand human language with the same depth as a toddler: AI needs way too much extra help. The problem is not that these things are poorly drawn: they are semantically incorrect. It is like the "horse riding an astronaut" example which art generators still routinely screw up[1]. AI knows what "astronaut" and "person riding a horse" look like, so it can draw "astronaut riding a horse" just fine, using shallow reasoning. But since they don't understand what "horse" "riding" or "astronaut" mean, and no clue what "horse rides a person" looks like, their shallow reasoning fails. But a child who actually understands human language would probably be able to draw a horse riding an astronaut - I know I could and I suck at drawing. It wouldn't be nearly as clean or detailed as DALL-E 3, but it would be semantically correct. The difference is that children understand what horses and astronauts are, and can use physical reasoning to imagine how a horse might ride an astronaut piggyback/etc. Art generators do not understand what horses are and are incapable of physical reasoning. [1] https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/horse-rides-astronaut-redux https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/horse-rides-astronaut-redu...