yeah there are. 3 years back as I was preparing for my JEE exams my maths teacher used to record every lecture he takes everyday and upload it on a local server for all the students to view at any time if they missed a class. He had a huge number of computers for all his students and most of the monitors were these almost square ones. They were quite old too.
Me too, these are actually pretty good! Especially the wings/feathers, they seem to be an error-prone feature but these ones are not bad.
If you look closely enough, there are oddities with pretty much any AI art--although it does seem to be getting better. For whatever reason, AI continues to struggle with hands; it seems like maybe eagle hands/claws sort of fall into that same area where the AI artist doesn't really understand what they are supposed to look like.
I thought this was an interesting article that does sort of shed some light on at least why AI hands are frequently so off:
The linked Twitter thread I found abolutely hilarious to read through (redirected to Nitter here).
Another weird thing AI artists do is they will leave random "floating" elements the art, almost like an idea that didn't finish getting incorporated into the image somehow...like the artist got distracted partway through, but just left it.
Still, even if they require a skilled post-processing effort I think AI images are getting really good. Recently in the news, an artist won an award for a photo but then came out and announced he was not accepting the award, because he had submitted an AI-generated image as a stunt.
It surely is a lot more convincing at the B&W photography department than the illustrations. I suppose it comes down to fine training at the end of the day, but it's also a much more defined style that follows the rules of physical perspective... so less room for "bloopers"