I can't tell if the people commenting are realizing that or not. In any case AI design ... I don't know, if I was a skeptic before I'm definitely curious now.

It does make me think about the legal implications. This reminds me about the makers of the song "blurred lines" getting sued by the estate of Marvin Gaye. To listen to that song and "Got to Give It Up" by Gaye is (to my mind) acknowledge that they didn't exactly take the song with out credit buy they did (to reference the Apple v. Microsoft case) take the look and feel.

INAL so I can't square those two cases in my mind (Gaye's estate won and Apple lost) but this really suggests that:

A - copyright is idiotic on some level B - there's going to be a lot more of that type of case

Before I understood it was AI, I found it odd that some of the women were somewhat sexualized visually. That seemed to be a bit disconnected from the idea that this is a machine world where I expect it to be emotionless, sexless.

You may disagree but to me it points out the shortcomings still present in AI art — a lack of the ability to make editorial decisions.

Except the machine world in Tron has never been presented as emotionless or sexless. The plot of Tron 2 literally involves a budding romance between the protagonist and a hot computer girl. The franchise's lack of overt sexuality is due more to it being a Disney property than anything, but they didn't hire Olivia Wilde for her acting skills.

Plus, one could imagine the Jodorowsky version of Tron simply making different editorial decisions. It isn't as if fetishizing technology is unheard of - it was HR Giger's entire thing, and it goes back all the way to Metropolis.

Obviously this wasn't the result of a conscious application of vision, but it could very well have been.

Jodorowsky didn't make editorial decisions either; his style is much more about generating as many ideas as possible and jamming them into the medium.

Jodorowsky also sexualizes everything... Consider, for example, this short scene about eating a prickly pear: https://youtu.be/GgX3TlgZj5s

The first two sentences of the article make that perfectly clear.

But not the headline, which is what I wrote.

The headline doesn't mention AI art, but it doesn't really imply that it's actually Jodorowski's work either. "Jodorowski's Tron" might have, but "Fantasy Jodorowski's Tron visualizations" strongly implies that this is some other artist's idea of what a Jodorowski Tron movie from an alternate universe might have looked like, which is pretty much the case.

There was nothing deceptive or clickbaity in the title, is what I'm saying.

“Jodorowski’s Tron” was indeed the original headline, which what I was commenting on. It changed after I had written my comment.