Why do artists think this is a flex?
Congratulations, you did an art. Cartoons were created exclusively by humans until recently. There's millennia of optimization for what's easy for humans to draw, and what's easy for humans to understand. If you are an illustrator by training or trade, of course you can out-cartoon the robot.
Now draw a cat that's photorealistic.
You can, of course. Hyperrealist art exists. It's hilariously difficult. But this tech allows any idiot to render any thing in any style, including high verisimilitude. When people use the word "accessible" (and they aren't simply douchebags shuffling cards) they mean getting results like they spent ten thousand hours in Photoshop, in about a minute.
Key word, like. It always fumbles little details. But those details can be a smudge of grey when you ask for a blank white square, or they can be asymmetry in the thousands of gilded flowers on a fluted column, when you asked for a palatial dining hall. Both images take a minute.
I can code better than this tech. But most people can't. They could, if trained, but they're not trained, so they presently cannot. I cannot write or play music better than this tech. Others can, because they're sentient adults with abundant practice. But now anyone can get halfway there, without any practice.
Winning a drawing contest against people who cannot draw is not impressive. And I wonder how many artists silently tried it and lost anyway, because some geek pulled a sprawling Renaissance mural out of thin air. It's a cute cat. But if it's going up against some Wimmelbild that's packed to the gills with silly details and looks like a skull from across the room - good luck.
You could draw that skull thing better. But you couldn't do it in an afternoon.
