Procreate defies AI trend, pledges "no generative AI" in its illustration app
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
What I imagine Procreate really want to express is their dedication to art and artists, which are certainly threatened by aspects of the current generative AI wave. I think they could have done this without promising no generative AI features. Promising to focus on artists, to not use creations for training, not partnering with companies who aren't respecting artists rights, all would have gone some way towards this.
> "Now thats the way to send a message. Now if only you guys could get a full power competitor to [Photoshop] on desktop with plugin support. Until someone can build a real competitor to high level [Photoshop] use, I'm stuck with it."
I think Photoshop will do just fine.
Your argument seems to frame it as them “fundamentally needing” , or are in some way obliged to have that feature, when no such evidence exists for that.
Even if the whole current generative AI trend disappears entirely, that's still a feature customers wanted before, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't still want it.
And that's assuming nothing comes of the current trend. I would imagine the opposite, that at least one or two limited use-cases will be found for things similar to generative fill, that in years time will be regarded as normal, not as problematic.
Now if Procreate wants to position themselves as "low tech", that's a different thing, and they're free to do so, but looking at their product it doesn't seem that they're going for "low tech" in any other way.
Nowhere do they talk of shunning all maachine learning. Current generative models are not exactly a technological product.
Listen to what people do, not what they say.
Generative AI is AI that can generate examples from learned models. This is opposed to discriminating AI which given an answer can tell you if it's correct. This actually matters because in fact there are many types of gen AI, the vast majority not being image nor large language models.
"Founded on theft" is nonsensical moralizing that doesn't help anyone with anything, and definitely doesn't help define any sort of sensible AI regulation.
(Please note I made no claim here about whether or not AI is "founded on theft" and only that Procreate used that turn of phrase.)
If you're talking to someone, that means meeting in the middle because it goes both ways. If you're reading or discussing a document and the author isn't around, that means adopting the author's terminology, because there isn't really an alternative.
If the definition is anything that generates new art automatically, then features like generative fill would be included. If it's only AI that was "founded on theft", then they have a lot more scope for future features but have perhaps lost control of the narrative and might have users rebelling if they add AI features, after all there are multiple ways in which these features can be problematic, not just the use of training data.
You can use AI models to help create content. What about something like object selection or object removal?
But generative AI would base the art itself on AI training on someone's work on learning their style.
If you follow Twitter drama or r/ArtistHate and r/AIWars, you'll see that a number of non-artists are stirring up anti-AI drama and gatekeeping a community they don't even belong to (yet). It's wild to see. They've been caught using AI to create art, then using AI to rip off that art with sock puppets, then posting complaints about it.
On the flip side, I've met a lot of VFX artists that are using Comfy on the regular now as a part of their process. They love it.
A lot of this "no-AI" marketing is catering to this "anti" movement. I suspect they wouldn't want software with "no algorithms", though. And as more artists come to use AI in their work, I believe that's where the argument will shift: that generative AI is just another tool in the artist's tool box.
Mostly from non users of AI and non artists (AI friendly or not)
The only legit argument seems to be that AI has empowered scores of low quality submissions to various places. The issue being is that instead of asking low quality submissions to go away, they take angry anti AI stances.
The problem as its been put over and over again is that branding things as AI is good for initial funding but bad for the actual implementation.
Lots of discussion 2 weeks ago:
EDIT: What's with the downvotes? Other "pro-genAI" comments are getting downvoted too. How is it that a community of builders and hackers are so against this?
This is like saying keyboards suddenly made tens of millions of people novelists and shows deep confusion about what constitutes creative expression.
And something as little as modifying a meme is a form of creative expression.
Is there a technological tool[1] which would've solved that problem?
[1] Technological as opposed to, say, a mindfulness technique, which some would describe as a tool.
I dont share any of my content with people. I dont think its any good. But I can sit down with 3 AI's and bash out a story that I enjoy, that I largely controlled the creation of. Heck you can do it in multiple ways. I can have NovelAI fix the rough edges of my writing. I can have ChatGPT use a format like Lester Dents and simply ask me for the creative bits in between. I can ask it to help me follow a formal novel outline process.
Years ago I wanted to commission some art from a Deviant Art account. I waited 3 weeks for the response that they didnt have the time and suggested other people.
I am not saying AI should replace that bloke, and it hasnt he now has a steady high paying gig, but the time for me to go from brainfart to execution has drastically decreased. The creative input I have in the process hasn't changed. Its all critique and develop right. Heck most tools let me highlight the problem and rework just that part of the image.
Ultimately I enjoy it as creativity. Even if people look down their nose at it, its working the same muscles just faster.
Unfortunately, this isn’t true. It’s just bathing in the median of others people work, at best akin to playing video games (vs making them). There’s no shame in it, I love playing games too, but if you ever want to rise to the level of independent creative expression, you’ll have to give up these crutches, confront your own limitations, and risk failure to overcome them. No challenge, no change.
Artists copy famous paintings for the same reason.
Its stupid to presume that no artist ever "bathed" in the the median of other peoples work before 2021.
But it's all to gue in cheek, cuz I use Claude for writing python all the time.
It would only be shortsighted if it was some kind of enforceable-in-the-future commitment.
As it is, it is an excellent short-term way to grab mindshare with a sizable chunk of the target market by what amounts to political signalling that costs nothing, either in current resources or in foreclosing future options.