I'm working on an idea for a story that's why I've been watching like old monster movies

[ghostrek]

Research although I do like the original Dracula a lot well the 1931 version I also respect the universal Frankenstein obit ableist I mean considering the literary version is arguably a well read man  me read through the whole Bible Paradise Lost a lot of philosophy  and I also kind of have a begotting respect for Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde albeit I have bad anger issues and not I'm also of the opinion he is masking did Dr Jekyll Persona is the mask and hide is the true self

[André Toulon]

[The_annoying_one]

[-Kudasai-]

Ok

[mthor]

28 minutes ago, ghostrek said:

Research although I do like the original Dracula a lot well the 1931 version I also respect the universal Frankenstein obit ableist I mean considering the literary version is arguably a well read man  me read through the whole Bible Paradise Lost a lot of philosophy  and I also kind of have a begotting respect for Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde albeit I have bad anger issues and not I'm also of the opinion he is masking did Dr Jekyll Persona is the mask and hide is the true self

Why do you consider the Frankenstein movie ableist? 

[André Toulon]

8 minutes ago, mthor said:

Why do you consider the Frankenstein movie ableist? 

I think thats albeit, since he spelled it right later, but who tf care anymore...he certainly doesn't, so why bother 

If he enjoys being a cyst in a world of warts, just let him

[discolé monade]

what a fool

[mthor]

2 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

I think thats albeit, since he spelled it right later, but who tf care anymore...he certainly doesn't, so why bother 

If he enjoys being a cyst in a world of warts, just let him

Lo, I am become Death, destroyer of words...

 

(Thanks, @Doom Metal Alchemist.)

[ghostrek]

49 minutes ago, mthor said:

Why do you consider the Frankenstein movie ableist? 

The very concept of a disease  brain that seems kind of weird and outdated even by that time albeit popular and Eugenics circles during that era

Edited 20 hours ago by ghostrek

[SwimOdin]

Fuck it, I'm burning down the rain forest and using AI to decipher the OP.

 

Absolutely — let’s slow down and unpack what the original author was trying to express. Their writing was a bit tangled, but the meaning is actually pretty clear once you break it apart.

Here’s a clean interpretation of what they were saying:

 

What the original author meant

1. They’ve been watching old monster movies for story research.

They’re working on a story idea, so they’re revisiting classic Universal monster films.

2. They like the 1931 Dracula.

They specifically enjoy the Bela Lugosi version and seem to respect it as a classic.

3. They respect the Universal Frankenstein, but…

They acknowledge that the movie version is very different from Mary Shelley’s original creature.

They point out that:

• The literary creature is intelligent
• He reads the Bible, Paradise Lost, and philosophy
• He’s much more articulate and thoughtful than the movie version

So they’re aware of the contrast between the “monster movie” version and the “well‑read, philosophical” book version.

4. They also respect Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

But here they shift into something more personal.

They say:

• They have anger issues
• They believe that in the story, Dr. Jekyll is the mask
• Hyde is the true self

This is their interpretation of the character — that Hyde isn’t a separate being but the real personality underneath Jekyll’s polite exterior.

5. The overall theme

They’re comparing different classic monsters and reflecting on how:

• The movie versions simplify things
• The literary versions are deeper
• And in the case of Jekyll/Hyde, they personally relate to the idea of a hidden, more volatile self

 

In one sentence

They’re saying:
“I’m researching old monster movies for a story. I like the 1931 Dracula, I respect the Universal Frankenstein even though the book version is much smarter, and I relate to Jekyll/Hyde because I think Jekyll is just a mask hiding the real self, Hyde.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...that's a lotta analysis.  Sorry environment.

[Insipid]

I just told ChatGPT to draw something based on the OP and . . . it actually looks good.

[SwimOdin]

Just now, Insipid said:

I just told ChatGPT to draw something based on the OP and . . . it actually looks good.

Damn that whips ass.

[André Toulon]

AI likes the buttchin... even gave the mask a buttchin

[discolé monade]

using AI for this, is just absolutely amazing and i'm so glad to witness it's existance. all hail AI.

[1pooh4u]

I gotta say I absolutely hate AI for anything artistic 

fuckin entering prompts doesn’t equate to art. It infuriates me that people are probably making a fortune off of prompts somehow and if they aren’t yet, they definitely will be soon

 

[-Kudasai-]

27 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

I gotta say I absolutely hate AI for anything artistic 

fuckin entering prompts doesn’t equate to art. It infuriates me that people are probably making a fortune off of prompts somehow and if they aren’t yet, they definitely will be soon

 

 I gotta tell you, if I were someone that draws, paints or does anything else art related I would be offended that you got a bunch of AI slop artists running around believing that they're legitimate artists even they didn't put the work in just random goofballs typing in prompts and calling it art. 

I would give anything to see people in the art community absolutely dress down these ai "artists" to their faces and they can be some savages with the criticism.

[André Toulon]

I like AI for making hilarious shit like this

But as soon as you try to profit off of it, it starts circling the drain fast...

Mfers making songs and adding a dead artist as a feature might be the most disrespectful shit ever if you're selling the album.

Michael Jackson singing "Me So Horny" for free tickles tf outta me tho

[1pooh4u]

40 minutes ago, -Kudasai- said:

 I gotta tell you, if I were someone that draws, paints or does anything else art related I would be offended that you got a bunch of AI slop artists running around believing that they're legitimate artists even they didn't put the work in just random goofballs typing in prompts and calling it art. 

I would give anything to see people in the art community absolutely dress down these ai "artists" to their faces and they can be some savages with the criticism.

I would definitely watch that series if they made it they can call it “The AI Dress-Down” where legit artists lay into AI “artists”

but nah

instead we’ll get the reality series “AI vs The Artist” where professional artists try to sus out the AI art from the real art. Maybe they even do a blind test where the pros have to say which piece they like more, without knowing if it’s human, or AI art

lol there I go getting furious at shit I just made up. JFC, and conservatives do this everyday? I think I am done practicing the art of getting pissed off at made up shit, that I made up. 🫠😆🫠😆🫠

[1pooh4u]

37 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

I like AI for making hilarious shit like this

But as soon as you try to profit off of it, it starts circling the drain fast...

Mfers making songs and adding a dead artist as a feature might be the most disrespectful shit ever if you're selling the album.

Michael Jackson singing "Me So Horny" for free tickles tf outta me tho

Using it like this, or making silly cat and dog videos w AI is a little different. As long as people aren’t trying to make $ off it, or to trademark prompts so no one else can use them without paying for them. 

[scoobdog]

As a graphic designer and photographer, I can both see the benefit of AI assisted work and be offended at the lack of pride that comes with not creating an image at every step.  It kind of goes with my generations diatribe form the other thread:  there's a distinction that comes from using AI as machine learning versus AI for content generation.  AI as we know it is supposed to be machine learning at its finest, sacrificing a bit of control to automate repetitive and time consuming menial tasks.  Generating content, even something as non-offensive as a throw away meme, creates an existential problem with the medium.  I wouldn't waste time cutting and pasting a photo of Trump on Suge Knights body either because its hardly worth the effort to make a joke that could be made in the thirty or so seconds it takes to write a witty post.  At the same time, generating the pic, even with my own caption, means less because its a computer interpreting what I'm trying to express in a way that is, at best, a better version of what I would have come up with myself.  The fact that it actually looks good is itself the problem; we're breaking a barrier where the machine stops being a tool and starts being an extension of our thought process.  Losing out on the many skills that came with "growing up" on relatively antiquated desktop computers has opened the door for things like this to happen.

[-Kudasai-]

40 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

As a graphic designer and photographer, I can both see the benefit of AI assisted work and be offended at the lack of pride that comes with not creating an image at every step.  It kind of goes with my generations diatribe form the other thread:  there's a distinction that comes from using AI as machine learning versus AI for content generation.  AI as we know it is supposed to be machine learning at its finest, sacrificing a bit of control to automate repetitive and time consuming menial tasks.  Generating content, even something as non-offensive as a throw away meme, creates an existential problem with the medium.  I wouldn't waste time cutting and pasting a photo of Trump on Suge Knights body either because its hardly worth the effort to make a joke that could be made in the thirty or so seconds it takes to write a witty post.  At the same time, generating the pic, even with my own caption, means less because its a computer interpreting what I'm trying to express in a way that is, at best, a better version of what I would have come up with myself.  The fact that it actually looks good is itself the problem; we're breaking a barrier where the machine stops being a tool and starts being an extension of our thought process.  Losing out on the many skills that came with "growing up" on relatively antiquated desktop computers has opened the door for things like this to happen.

I can't help but feel that the concerns being raised are falling on deaf ears. I'm at the point where I'm getting tired of talking and I wants these idiots find out the hard way.

[scoobdog]

1 hour ago, -Kudasai- said:

I can't help but feel that the concerns being raised are falling on deaf ears. I'm at the point where I'm getting tired of talking and I wants these idiots find out the hard way.

It's a problem that ultimately solves itself.

Art is above all else a form of communication; regardless of how beautiful, ugly, plain, confusing it might be, the ultimate point is to say something.  For instance, is AI art all that much worse than a Thomas Kincaide painting or, God forbid, a Bob Ross painting?  We might be trained by the relentless media exposure, particularly of the latter, of how we're supposed to feel about the work, but in either case the work itself is generic, fairly easily produced, and says very little beyond whatever nostalgia you as the viewer project on to it.  In fact, Bob Ross's work is more about the cult of personality surrounding the man himself and largely built up by his successors who were trying to build an image they could sell.  Of course, we would never diminish the work either Kincaide or Ross put into their painting by saying its AI could do the same.  At the same time, we're also not going to get much more out of the paintings than a reasonable facsimile made by a random guy on the internet, not like we might by looking at a DaVinci (overrated as those may be).

What these AI using fools aren't getting is that the real charm in whatever they create is what it says about them and what they think.  I'll be the first to admit that my visual artwork isn't groundbreaking or special.  It just reflects how I see my subjects.  If I'm doing a newsletter graphic for a special event I'm covering at the beach, the design is innocuous but it uses colors and shapes that reflect how I might see the sun setting on the ocean.  I put effort into my landscape photos that take into account not just perspective on the subject, but all the peripheral spaces that inform on that subject.  Ultimately more people will not particularly care about any of that and just look at the image for what it is,  but I will still reach at least someone who appreciates what they're seeing.  If It were an AI image, than the pretty picture will reach nobody, and, if that image is presented as traditional but is later found to be AI, then the artist completely destroys they're ability to create art in perpetuity.

There just isn't a way to make AI generated content mean something.  Ultimately, the artists that use AI get nothing out of it.