Interesting.
The original image is clearly better than the AI image, even with it's "flaws". Here's why, and perhaps I should state, the original image offers a starting point, a genesis if you will, of where you could go, even though you said you were limited (I'm guessing due to where you were standing while shooting) in being able to get the sun in the frame.
With the original, I get a very strong sense of place and emotion of the scene. I can *feel* the muck around my boots, the annoying black flies or whatever is buzzing around me, the warmth of the light as it caresses the landscape. I believe the shot - it's real, and I can absolutely imagine being there. I *want* to be there, to see that wonderful light. There's almost an emotion of jealousy when I see this - I'd rather be at (and shooting) that scene than sitting indoors typing this on a keyboard. And even with some "flaws", there's a lot to like about the original shot. So sure, you couldn't get the sun in the frame. So if it's absolutely impossible to do so while shooting, don't. Either leave something in, or leave something out - one rule I learned a long time ago is actually from a photography portfolio consultant a lot of the NYC based serious photographers in the 70's went to - Henrietta Brackman, and I never forgot it: "When in doubt, leave it out". Now from a photography-at-the-scene perspective, that might be changed to "make sure you take as many shots as possible from different angles because you'll never be able to repeat the situation" (Joe McNally has a line that hints to this). But in your original shot the sun occupies the middle ground - it doesn't add, so crop it out just slightly, or darken the impact of it so the good parts of the scene - and there are many - aren't diminished.
The technical knowledge of what you could do to make your original scene stand out might be found via chatGPT, but would be better served by more traditional technical education in the areas of post. One thing for sure is that rule one is to not remove anything that is already working in the scene - the "do no wrong to what is good" theory, similar to what an audio mastering engineer does if they get a very well recorded track into tweak - they make sure they operate in a manner that doesn't destroy what is good. So the color and tone is nice, the overall feel. But then one has to realize - if this is meant for print, with a far more limited dynamic range than a transmissive medium like a display, we're going to have to brighten up - in a realistic way (hugely important - the world 'realistic'), and in your case that means leaving the bright parts of the image alone, the near-bright parts alone, but perhaps increasing a bit of brightness on things that may appear muddy on a print. So in this case, a test print would be the starting point, then some subtle changes, another test print. That process would be more educational than an AI tool because you'll see and visually remember the next time.
From a cropping/composition point of view, while AI might be used to offer different crops, I would again say it would be better to get in the habit of shooting as much as you can while the light is good, moving around, and waiting for sure until the light is truly "gone" before you leave. I remember the advice I got from a famous photographer who told me to always be the last one leaving a scene after sunset, and I remember another saying "move your ***" so you have more options later. Those extra shots, even if they aren't useful, will eventually train your visual system to see opportunities the next time.
As for the AI shot, bluntly, it's horrible. It turned something with promise into a cheap discount store painting you find for 1.99 in the dusty back corner near lawn utensils, to be ignored. It is way over-saturated the crop is sterile - the AI engine is just following predetermined "rule of thirds" guidelines without any humanistic view of the final image, and it offers zero emotion. While your original image made me jealous, wanting to be there, feeling the sense of place and time, the AI image does none of that. Synthetic, unrealistic, and cheap.
Bottom line: use chatGPT for what it's good at: research, summarizing text, getting code snippets as a developer, etc. I would never touch it for anything involving creativity. It just ain't there yet. And that's not even considering the ongoing research that those who heavily rely on AI engines to replace thinking show losses in cognitive ability and I'd argue, in visual ability.
You'd be better off to shoot as much as you can, move as much as you can while shooting, and then go study the works of other photographers who shoot similar things and grow visually, and leave chatGPT and it's ilk for other things.
I'd like to see you work with the original more as opposed to using chatGPT. I bet you could end up with something, while not optimum, would still be quite interesting.
