A "baby peacock" is not a thing, so I honestly don't see the search quality issue here. The text "baby peacock" is associated with these fabricated images.
Have you ever encountered the extremely large contingent of HN commenters who claim to prefer that Google interpret their search literally, exactly, and at face value? Wouldn't they be howling mad if Google silently adjusted the core concept of your search from "baby peacock" to "peafowl chick"?
In any case the web and Google's index of it is crowdsourced. If the web associates this image and that phrase, what are they supposed to do about it?
But if I told someone that I had baby peacocks on my farm, they wouldn't look at me bewildered and wonder what kind of animal I'm talking about. If they know what a peacock is, then they know what a baby peacock is, whether I'm using the correct word or not. The same is true if I say "baby cow" instead of calf, or "baby horse" instead of foal. You and I can picture exactly what those animals look like in our heads, and it seems AI can too.
