I agree with you vehemently.
Another way of looking at it is, insistence on complete verisimilitude in an image generator is fundamentally in error.
I would argue, even undesirable. I don't want to live in a world where a 45 year old keyboard that was only out for 4 years is readily imitated in every microscopic detail.
I also find myself frustrated, and asking myself why.
First thought that jumps in: it's very clear that it is in error to say the model has no idea, modulo there's some independent run that's dramatically different from the only one offered in this thread.
Second thought: if we're doing "the image generators don't get details right", it would seem to be there a lot simpler examples than OPs, and it is better expressed that way - I assume it wasn't expressed that way because it sounds like dull conversation, but it doesn't have to be!
Third thought as to why I feel frustrated: I feel like I wasted time here - no other demos showing it's anywhere close to "no idea", its completely unclear to me whats distinctive about a IBM Model F Keyboard, and the the wikipedia images are worse than Google's AFAICT.
> if we're doing "the image generators don't get details right", it would seem to be there a lot simpler examples than OPs
There are different sorts of details though, and the distinctions are both useful and interesting to understanding the state of the art. If "man drinking coke" produces someone with 6 fingers holding a glass of water that's completely different from producing someone with 5 fingers holding a can of pepsi.
Notice that none of the images in your example got the function key placement correct. Clearly the model knows what a relatively modern keyboard is, and it even has some concept of a vaguely retro looking mechanical keyboard. However indeed I'm inclined to agree with OP that it has approximately zero idea what an "IBM model F" keyboard is. I'm not sure that's a failure of the model though - as you point out, it's an ancient and fairly obscure product.