That's just one specific example of why it fails as a high-level general professional tool. Even for tasks like straight-up photo finishing... might be OK for making some neat thing or adding some generated detail to a phone shot but no way that's going to finish someone's professionally shot photos. It might replace Fiverr graphic design that was probably done with a template but real graphic design has conceptual meaning. Making the actual assets is the easy part.

I think what most developers don't realize is that creating media, even snazzy, captivating images, is a tiny portion of the work commercial artists and designers do beyond Fiverr or the people working at sign shops. We've got bazillions of stock photos, asset stores, etc. etc. etc. available at our fingertips at a pretty low cost... and we use them, just as we'll use AI generated images in our processes... Just not for anything that actually matters. Reducing art and design to what so many people have is nearly akin to reducing coding to how fast someone can generate code regardless of it's suitability for the purpose. I could go into Adobe Illustrator and make most of the vector art you see on the net in a few minutes. Knowing what needs to go on the screen, exactly how it needs to go on the screen, and the effects of putting it there, what it communicates and to whom, etc. etc. etc. are the hard parts. You could have a tool that would instantly translate millions of pretty images from someone's imagination in a matter of milliseconds but that's not going to make them useful for communication or anything else.

So very much of this hype is people simply assuming that they understand something that they don't. And that's why the UIs for most FOSS applications suck yet the project contributors will defend them like their own children.