HN these days is very similar to Reddit. Most users spend their free time talking about things others have done, rather than doing things themselves. Of course, most of this internet discussion leans negative for various reasons that have been addressed in other places better than I could recap.
Why care what anybody on here thinks? They're mostly anonymous nobodies.
Don't worry about HN, they represent 0.000000001% of the entire human population, it is essentially a very very small bubble.
As for why does HN think AI image models will never be satisfactory?
They don't have to be satisfactory, it just has to be good enough for the vast majority of people.
> Isn't it folly to bet against the advancement of technology?
I just like good art. I don't have any strong feelings for or against AI, but I do epistemically reject art that lacks composition or intent. AI-generated art doesn't understand rhythm, symbolism or image arrangement. This is an obvious problem when trying to generate a photoreal subject without six fingers per hand, but especially troubling if you want to give Starry Night a run for it's money.
You will be perpetually disappointed if you portray this as a "luddite vs enlightenment" problem. If you enjoy AI art, more power to you! The rest of us are overwhelmingly disinterested, AI art isn't filling out any gallery I've ever visited.
> Why is a significant subset of HN so confident when it comes to their view that the exponential improvement curve
Which scaling law has ever promised an "exponential improvement curve" for image generation, let alone AI as a whole? I think you're making stuff up here, or we're reading different research papers.
Remember what everyone said about film and digital? Give it time. Take every advantage open to you. Satisfy someone, if not this mob.