Opinions are like...
I was underwhelmed by the cover art, but thinking about it, it would have been easy to do a late 60s psychadelic thing and keep it "on brand". Instead, they have done something completely different.
The Beatles, defying expectations after 60 years. Love it.
The problem is The Beatles are so huge you can justify and find good explanations for anything they do, it could be just a black square and everybody would find new meanings in it, could be anything. Is it a good thing? Probably. But when your cover art looks like a temporary placeholder picture music stores would make, I think you've got a problem.
They could've used AI to generate the image (or maybe it was AI, after all), they could've asked fans, and they could've reimagined one of the older covers, but let's just stick 3 words with lazy shadows, it will do. No band name, no pleasure to scale it to LP size (Bigger words? WOW!), absolutely f-ing lazy. Even a solid colour would work better, but they already did it in 1968!
The worst part is the absence of a huge part of the song — it simply sounds better complete. They composed a new part and Paul (!) played the solo inspired (!!!) by George Harrison, basically imitating his style. Innovative, huh? I mean what a lazy approach is this? How is this a Beatles song?
Complete madness.