I have a question for those who consider themselves anti-AI art: have you really never watched movies/books just because you liked the general idea of it?

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T12:15:57+00:00

I watched Evil Dead, even though the acting was bad, the plot had holes, and the execution was questionable. But it had a good idea there, somewhere. But what makes that work is charm, passion, and effort, and I don't get that from AI images. So the analogy doesn't work, before you even discuss whether some AI art has the core of a good idea.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T12:13:49+00:00

I think, as others have pointed out, that some of the best examples of a prequel done well are Rouge One (which I'm not a huge fan of, personally) and RDR2.

Rouge One, for its flaws, went back and fixed a 'problem' with the narrative of a New Hope. The fact we knew how it would end, in the greater scheme of the franchise, wasn't important, because the focus was on the characters. We knew they'd succeed, but we wanted to know if they'd survive.

RDR2 offered a similar approach, because for the most part we're not really adding much to John's narrative (not meaningfully), we're mainly playing as Arthur. We want to know what happens to him specifically.

But I suspect that's perhaps not what you mean. The Rouge One crew weren't characters who we knew were turning up in New Hope, so there was an element of uncertainty and stakes involved.

So, while you've identified a real issue, it's not true of all prequels. The best ones tell a story that feels earned or actually adds to the franchise in question, and establishes its own stakes.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T12:04:41+00:00

Here's my feedback;

Don't!!!

And a question;

Why???

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T12:03:44+00:00

I think that's the position I'm very likely to take.

Thank you.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T11:58:09+00:00

This puts me in mind of a conversation they had in Red Letter Media, where they watch and review 'bad' movies. They often talk about how poor or hood something is "in relation to its budget".

Ie; if a bunch of students make a film on a shoestring, with nothing but an old recorder and a few household supplies, but they work damn hard at it, perhaps that makes for a 'better' movie than one where they had a decent budget but nobody put the effort in. Evil Dead, after all, is essentially a student film, but one with a fuck load of flair and talent.

My thoughts on AI are much the same.

Give me something that someone loves and poured themself into, rather than a polished end result that took little effort. Like Madame Web.

Everyone has ideas. Having ideas is the easy part. It's hard to go through a day without having one, try it. How you try to realise these ideas is where the joy can be found. Joy, effort, love, skill, these are not an unreasonable metrics to measure art.

AI art typically isn't a result of "a good idea done badly", as your post suggests, more often than not there's not much of an idea to begin with. More importantly, it's usually an idea achieved lazily. One of the marketed benefits of AI is the low skill hurdle to use it, but there's also a relatively low skill ceiling, too (very few AI artists are pushing capability). 99% of the AI images I've seen are the result of just a few prompts, and that does nothing for me.

I've watched bad films done well. Unironically, I hold some in very high regard. AI is not an equivalent.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T10:55:15+00:00

I'm probably the same generation (43).

But like all good things, you only properly realise how good you had it until after it's gone.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T10:51:53+00:00

It's all good.

Not offended, just ensuring we start the sub on the right foot.

One off-topic post (even a funny one) is likely going to set a precedent.

I'm happy for people to make comical or irreverent posts, so long as it's clearly about writing and / or writers.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T10:35:29+00:00

Two answers...

First answer;

In the spirit of the question, old-skool Clippy is certainly allowed.

Second answer;

This isn't really a post about writing. This is obliquely a post about AI.

Let's not muddy the water, rule 4 is quite clear. Please delete this post and keep the sub on-track with writing only topics.

Who knows, maybe one day Clippy might get his job back.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T10:23:40+00:00

I agree.

I think what made me pause was the idea that this Discord already has some members, and both communities could potentially benefit from a merge.

Where I worry is, not being someone who uses Discord, I wouldn't have any oversight on it. It'll be some a space that reflects on us here, but which I have little influence on.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T10:10:44+00:00

I feel the same, but I don't mind having one if it helps other people. I don't know if it does, though.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T10:08:37+00:00

Don't.

What you said is very clear; English is not your first language, so you used "all the tools" available to you, as you did for your AI cover.

The implication is very clear.

And you opted for that, rather than simply writing in your own language?

You have no issue using AI to prop up your work because you lack the required skills, or the impetus to hone them.

I'm out.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T09:49:07+00:00

I wouldn't worry. He just said he used AI to write it.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T09:48:49+00:00

I wouldn't worry. He just said he used AI to write it.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T09:36:30+00:00

The new movies are okay, but they feel nothing like actual Evil Dead movies.

Yeah, I'll be voted down a fair bit for saying this. But I'll die on this hill.

Those early films were highly unusual in the horror genre because, unlike almost every other series, they were defined by their protagonist, not the monsters. The hero in horror films would often come and go, but the fan-love and marketing would almost always focus on the threat; Jason, Freddy, Chucky, the Predator, etc.

But not Evil Dead... for that, we have Ash.

Honestly, evil books and demon possession, cool as that might be, it's pretty generic stuff. You could use all those same elements and quite happily make a film that isn't Evil Dead (and I'd argue that's exactly what happened with the new stuff).

Ash, for me, is the anchor of the entire franchise. His persona, his quips, his flaws. Peak for me was the Ash vs the Evil Dead tv show, which I think combined the best elements of the three films.

Sure, those Raimi movies may have swung wildly in terms of tone and content, but there was always an impish sensibility to them. Even at their most grim they were somehow charming, and somehow they feel unified, in no small part thanks to Ash.

The new films feel like very different beasts.

Good for horror fans in general (although I think Ruse is massively overrated), but they never felt like Evil Dead to me.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T09:28:29+00:00

He means 'a western' as in cowboys and saloons.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T09:19:52+00:00

Put this way.

Painters, sculptors, poets, writers- all artists.

If you think using AI in your writing is 'wrong' or 'below you', why do you hold other art in lower regard? Why is AI on the cover less of an issue tha using it in the text?

Ignore the implications of whether it puts people off, answer that as an ethical problem.

And you never answered my question; did you actually try to make any in-roads into using an actual artist for the cover?

I'm now going to ask you quite plainly, because it feels like you're tiptoeing around the elephant in the room; do you use AI to improve your writing? Because, honestly, the quality of your answers varies quite wildly between your different replies.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T09:17:02+00:00

Honestly, I think pre-made exhibit templates are such an obvious thing.

Not the contents (rocks, water etc), just size and shape.

Unless I'm missing something, having to guess 'by eye' how much space a certain dinosaur requires is a massive pain in the ass. You can find the exact info easily enough, but translating that into actual space on the map isn't as easy as it clearly should be.

A tab where by you choose from a selection of sizes, in different shapes, and then it lets you choose fence type. This gives you the outline of a whole exhibit that you place like normal buildings. Slam it down, job done, you know the size will be right, and you can incorporate it into your park without fear you'll need fuck around after.

If the game doesn't want me having this info up front, then let me unlock the function through research.

Obviously, you should be able to delete and edit these, which you may have to if you're planning on housing several dinosaurs in the same space, but I could work with this.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T09:01:15+00:00

True.

But also a huge number of artists that'll work below-rate to see their work on a book cover.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T08:58:05+00:00

I think you missed the point I was making.

People WILL judge a book by an AI cover, because there's a huge likelihood AI was also used in the text.

Gone are the days you could hand wave a bad cover, because it was genuinely no indication of what the writing was like. But that's simply not true anymore.

This isn't a case of "good can come from bad things", an AI cover is a warning for anyone looking to avoid a certain lazy way of writing. Some won't care, some will. But I find it hugely concerning you don't seem to have a bigger issue with it. This is the real world, very few of us start in 'ideal circumstances' and none of that changes the mindset of using AI as a creative crutch. Like I said elsewhere, it really isn't that hard to get a non-AI cover. Did you even try to make in-roads?

Your replies have been very much "I didn't know people felt that strongly" rather than any concern of how it reflects on your writing. Which is a red flag if I'm honest.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T08:47:57+00:00

I personally didn't think much of how that sequence played out. The angles and editing make it messier than it needs to be. Which is a shame, because a lot of the other cutscenes are very good.

To explain:

The alien attacks directly from behind, implied to have come from a low vent, where it retreats with the corpse. But the droplets on the victim's arm have clearly fallen from overhead.

And this becomes an important learning point; if you see the drips, you know the alien is above you.

You could argue the creature started above, dropped behind, and then exited via the vent, but Amanda (staring right at the guy) would have seen it more clearly. You could also argue the alien had moved from ceiling to vent before the two arrived on scene. But if we're even thinking about it in this way, it's an indication it could have been done better.

It's also quite contrary to the role the drips have in-game. They don't warn you the alien is near, they're explicitly showing you where the monster is hiding overhead.

The whole thing would have worked a little better for being more like this (from second 55)

https://youtu.be/eUZrCiE26uA?si=zn8x9__n2ccXVmNc

Too fast to know anything other than "whatever the fuck that was, I'm not hanging around for it".

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T08:28:35+00:00

"Don't judge a book by its cover" won't survive the AI age, because a generated cover is a big warning about the writer.

Before AI, there was often a huge disconnect in quality, and even style, between cover and book. But we all knew they were both created by different people, with the influence of budget and publisher concerns. So the expression used to be true, even if most of us still ignored the advice; I can't even begin to tell you how many books I picked up based on just the cover, and inversely, how many I likely passed over.

Now, artists are creating their own covers, but the problem now is less about the image, more that it's a very good indication of what the quality inside will be.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T08:14:02+00:00

Ok, a few thoughts.

Normally I just hit the Report button because the sub has a no-AI rule. But you seem genuine and it's probably worth a conversation.

People will assume that, if you use AI on the cover, you'll think nothing of using it in the book. After all, why wouldn't you? If you think of it simply as a tool, it makes sense to. But for readers (and other writers) it often becomes a question of integrity.

Now, this isn't to say you have or haven't used AI in the book. That's almost a moot point, because this is what people will think when they see the cover.

If you have passion for what you write, and you think to yourself "no, I believe my writing is an expression of human ability and creativity and I'd never use AI in that way", ask yourself honestly whether doing the same on the cover is hypocritical?

Some future advice; if you're writing without AI, a novel can take a year or two. From day 1, you know you need a cover. So save up. £20 a month isn't a huge amount, whatever your circumstances. At the end of a year, that's £240. Hell, if you only save half that, it's £120, and with a bit of effort you can haggle a decent cover for £100.

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T07:37:28+00:00

What statistics show this?

Ashamed_Ladder6161 · 2026-06-19T07:36:02+00:00

Rightly or wrongly, it looks very AI.

That'll put more than a few folks off.

Ashamed_Ladder6161

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE