That’s adding a lot of constraint to the simple list you had in your first comment.

They explained the actual task in more detail, because you clearly don't understand it. When someone says that image generators can produce animation that doesn't mean 'spitting out something that looks like shit that actual humans have to spend time cleaning up,' and you know they're not sold or advertised that way. It's a useless additional step that jams up work flows of the actual artists because it's giving you shit to fix with zero thought put into it. Human animators might consistently give you ugly shit with zero thought put into it that other people have to clean up as well, but they tend to lose their jobs.

I feel like you are wrapping it up in your own expectations and ignoring the things it can do because of that.

No, gen-AI pushers are lying about what it can do. Animation is not 'produce a thing that looks okay if you don't look at it too hard for 3 seconds,' it's the entire process. If a human being was hired with the expectation that they could animate and they were completely unable to link scenes together coherently, change perspectives, stay on model, and instead all they could do was short scenes with lens flare or some shit that other people still had to touch up, their ass would get fired. I'm not aware of any animators--as in, people paid to animate for their job, not people who play with AI to make 5 second generated videos--who actually want this in their job. It's like telling someone they can only do their animation with a really shitty photocopier instead of pencil and paper.