I had to switch to AI Mode first to get it to work, otherwise it just did a normal Google search. The results were not impressive.
It looks like maybe Google changed the way AI mode works overnight since I made my last post? It took more steps to get that image, and so far it hasn’t done an AI summary at the top of a few test searches. Maybe they’ve made it less intrusive?
I really like that image you got. Did you really get it from nano banana with just “create an image of whatever” or did you prompt it more than that?
Here’s what I just got, similar in vibe to what hogarth got, minus any attempt to describe what it created afterwards.
I prompted with what Gemini claimed that it had made a picture of for Hogarth.
I just noticed that it got all the Roman numerals on the clock dial correct. That’s pretty impressive.
This is pretty good - it’s wrong about the castle being in the picture, but the German is 99% good. ETA: missed clipping the text, which described the timbered houses, but also the castle Neuschwanstein.
I like using the single word prompt “Anything” and letting it generate whatever.
Latest from Nano Banana
And GPT1.5 low gave me these
The young woman has some anatomical improbabilities. But overall not bad.
ETA: that’s ref the last pic of the immediately prior post.
twitches at 3 of the astronomical impossibilities in the cosmic cat picture, the first one majorly 
, the second merely 
, and the last one, 
artistic license.
Okay, the big one is presumably the stars seen through the dark part of the Moon. What are the other two?
My guesses: angle from moon to sunset location, and it appears to me that the moon in that image would very much not be spherical in shape…
ETA: moon is probably very oversized as well.
Nah, that’s just the result of using a zoom lens.
Correct.
Correct. Not as many people notice that one.
I didn’t notice a problem there, and I still really don’t? Anyway, not the 3rd thing I chalked up to mostly artistic license.
position of the Moon relative to the Milky Way?
Interesting. Looks like Gemini is on a travel kick.
Larger image for inspection here, I’m not familiar enough with London to vouch for anything:
When asked to describe the image:
The image captures a lively, candid street scene on a damp afternoon in London. The focus is on a charming interaction at a rustic “Fresh Fruit & Veg” wooden cart, where an older man in a knit beanie is handing a red apple to a woman in a long grey coat.
Here are the key elements that bring the scene to life:
The Backdrop: A classic red double-decker bus (destined for Oxford Street) dominates the mid-ground, set against a row of familiar storefronts like WHSmith and Caffè Nero.
Atmosphere: The pavement is slick with rain, reflecting the city lights and scattered autumn leaves, giving the scene a cool, crisp feel.
The Commuters: To the left, several people in professional attire—including a man in a navy suit carrying a briefcase—are walking briskly, contrasting with the slower, personal moment happening at the fruit stall.
Details: The fruit cart is overflowing with vibrant produce, including bright yellow bananas, leafy greens, and a small bouquet of yellow and pink flowers, adding a splash of organic color to the urban grey.
The cat is surrounded by radioactive glowing mushrooms and you’re worried about stuff out in space? Inverse square law being what it is, I know which thing I’m afraid of.
Not sure about the use of the word ‘candid’, but more interesting is how much better they are at incorporating real-world lettering and brands (and Caffe Nero on both sides of the street? They should!).
Kind of. If the moon is anywhere in the sky at all, no matter what phase, that’s usually enough to wash out the faint Milky Way completely, but in this shot, there’s still twilight glow in the sky which is guaranteed to make the Milky Way invisible, probably even to cameras set on long exposure.
True enough. But there are so many very long exposures of the Milky Way out there online that an AI that’d (who’d?) never seen the real world could certainly be forgiven for thinking it was that bright and obvious in the real night sky.
We (I really) had a rant here some years ago about wildly unrealistic astrophotography that between exposure times and compositing and false color and … actually bore no resemblance to what a human can perceive. Such images may be artful, but they’re abstract impressionist art, not realistic art. [/mini-rant]
So yeah, this one I chalked up to “artistic license” and gave it more slack than the other two, but didn’t forgive it completely.