I've fed a couple of those chicken-scratch sketches to nanobanana with prompt "Treat attached as a technical drawing of a bicycle. Produce photo-realistic image of the actual bike manufactured to that spec. Try to stay close to the input, where possible", and... wow, results are not great.

It's funny to me, because I have a very strong spacial sense, and a lifetime of riding bikes. To the limit of my ability to draw, I can draw a flawless bicycle, down to the interlocked path the chain takes and the hanger on the derailleur.

I ride a recumbent trike, and the chain path is even more grotesque. I think I could draw it.

I also ride a recumbent: Catrike Expedition. I'm not sure I would get the subtleties of the chain guides correct. What's yours?

https://www.catrike.com/expedition

ICE Sprint https://www.icetrikes.co/products/sprint-x-tour-recumbent-tr...

Nice!

I can draw a very good bicycle compared to most, but I attribute that to my obsession with building, fixing, painting and reading non-stop about them as a teenager.

No. But it reveals something about how this technology works, its statistical properties, from which you can infer the limitations.

Humans aren't machines trained on the entire stolen corpus of human knowledge. We expect that a human will do poorly at arbitrary tasks they have no experience doing – especially drawing, which many (most?) humans aren't trained in at all. The same isn't true of AI, where its proponents, priests and proselytizers have spent time, energy and billions of dollars attempting to convince us it can do anything better than humans.

Sam Altman: “GPT-5 is the first time that it really feels like talking to an expert in any topic, like a PhD-level expert.”

Elon Musk on Grok: “better than PhD level in everything.”

Pelican enjoyers didn't like this one lol

That was very fun, thanks for the link