3 6 Ke·2025-08-29 06:26Group 1 - The article discusses the rapid growth of AI-generated images and their increasing integration into various platforms, highlighting their efficiency in work and study despite ongoing artistic controversies [1] - The evaluation focuses on six AI models, including Tencent's Mix Yuan, Zhiyu CogView-4, Tongyi Qianwen, Jimeng, Keling, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Image, to assess their performance in generating images from text prompts [2][3] - Gemini 2.5 Flash Image, previously known as nano-Banana, has gained significant attention for its superior performance in generating images [4][5] Group 2 - The evaluation criteria include basic aesthetics and realism, imagination and creativity, instruction understanding and execution, style imitation and mastery, and cultural understanding and concept expression [9][26][40][48] - In the first dimension, various models showed differing levels of realism, with some generating images that were too smooth or lacked natural proportions, while others performed exceptionally well [16][18] - The second dimension revealed challenges for AI in understanding abstract concepts, with models struggling to accurately depict a lion made of star clouds, indicating limitations in their imaginative capabilities [25] Group 3 - The third dimension highlighted that only a few models correctly executed simple instructions, suggesting that AI does not process numerical instructions in the same way humans do, but rather interprets them based on learned patterns [30][39] - In the fourth dimension, Gemini excelled in mimicking traditional Chinese ink painting styles, while other models struggled to meet the artistic requirements, indicating a lack of mastery in specific artistic styles [44] - The fifth dimension showed that Gemini and Keling demonstrated a strong understanding of cultural elements, effectively incorporating traditional features into their generated images, while others fell short [57] Group 4 - The overall scores from the evaluation ranked Gemini highest with 44 points, followed by Keling and Jimeng, indicating that these models produced the most visually appealing results [58][59] - The article emphasizes that while AI can produce impressive images, it does not create art in the same way humans do, as it relies on probabilistic models rather than creative inspiration [61][62] - The complexity of AI image generation processes is acknowledged, with the article noting that the exact sources of errors in image generation remain unclear [65][66]