My comment was because I liked the piece at first, but the more I looked at it the more apparent the errors and sloppiness (my opinion and I'm sticking with it) became. And while it's apparently a coincidence, the errors here are exactly the kind of red flags people usually look for when identifying AI art: objects that abruptly appear or cut out of existence, objects that fit in the scene but not in the way they're included in the scene, details that look natural at a glance but don't make sense upon inspection, disregard for perspective, textures that are detailed in the middle but muddled around the edges, etc. If it's completely normal for people to deride "AI slop" specifically* for its "looks good at first but the more you look the more mistakes pop out" quality, I feel completely legitimized for having similar complaints about human-made art.

• I recognize there are many more reasons why people hate AI art than for its imperfections, but the attitude I see frequently is that of "it would be one thing if AI art were any good, but not only is it [environmentally destructive/putting artists out of work/undermining the concept of creative pursuit/whatever], it's got all these bizarre little mistakes in it!"

Concept art is fine in context (and actually explains the state of this piece quite a bit), but I'm not going to give it positive feedback since the name of the community implies this is a place for finished pieces (it's not "Draft Apocalyptic Art"). Normally I'd stick to the adage of "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all," but this post was gaining too much traction at the time to not voice my displeasure at what I consider to be a low quality post, especially given the standards that the Internet has fallen to overall. But don't mind me, I'm just a crotchety millennial who misses the old Internet and is chronically jaded by the monetized brain rot of the current online world.