First of all, my post was quite clearly interpreting a prior comment, not making a claim of my own about whether anyone should be disappointed.
But since we're here: the gnashing of teeth on this thread about having been "mislead" does seem to me to be a bit out of proportion. This person really does seem to have developed a cool toy that uses AI to generate convincing abstract art, but many here aren't saying about it because they object to some of the wording on the landing page!
It's their own fault, of course, for writing the page the way that they did. But still...
I think people are just making a normal, perfectly correct and reasonable observation that the description was misleading, because it really was.
But the hallmark of many internet comment threads is to try and get additional mileage out the conversation by subjecting said reasonable observations to the ritual exercise of switcheroos, contrarianism, idiosyncratic distinctions and unusual interpretations. Which leads to the original wisdom being repeated, which makes it seem like it's being blown out of proportion.
But I think the simpler explanation is just that it's a correct observation and that it's not that complicated.
Fair enough. FWIW, when I originally weighed in, this conversation about the description being misleading was way up at the top of, and seemingly dominating, the entire thread. But I'm glad to see a bit more discussion about the actual work up top now.
But since we're here: the gnashing of teeth on this thread about having been "mislead" does seem to me to be a bit out of proportion. This person really does seem to have developed a cool toy that uses AI to generate convincing abstract art, but many here aren't saying about it because they object to some of the wording on the landing page!
It's their own fault, of course, for writing the page the way that they did. But still...