That’s awesome! Looks like I’m gonna buy procreate. They’re on the side of artists and humans
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad Illustration App Procreate Condemns Generative AI
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If generative AI is as benign as its proponents say, they let's see a mandatory indelible watermark on every piece of writing or art produced with it.
That won't affect the person who just wants to make a powerpoint more interesting, but it will make those tempted to pass AI work off as their own work think again, which will help protect the consumer from charlatans. It would help protect brands as well: I do not want to read work part-written/created by AI and I will use that information to avoid using companies that do.
That won't affect the person who just wants to make a powerpoint more interesting, but it will make those tempted to pass AI work off as their own work think again, which will help protect the consumer from charlatans. It would help protect brands as well: I do not want to read work part-written/created by AI and I will use that information to avoid using companies that do.
I vehemently oppose generative AI as it exists today: based on stolen artwork, trained on artwork that artists did not agree to have used for that purpose, and with no safeguards to prevent artists with prominent art styles from having their styles imitated. There's also shady unethical practices, such as Adobe sneakily adding to their ToS that materials uploaded to their cloud storage are fair game to their AI training. Not to mention malicious use such as deepfakes, propaganda, and influencing elections.
However, the genie is out of the bottle. Anyone running a beefy enough machine can run their own generative AI based on whatever materials they want to train it in. The only solution is a wide-scale social and legislative one, otherwise we'll see a lot of damage done to artists and their livelihoods. AI models should only be trained on materials where artists explicitly agree to have their artwork trained for it, and/or artists should be hired and compensated for specifically making content for these models. Using artwork to train these models without the artists' permission should be treated as copyright infringement.
There's also the huge, huge issue that artwork created by these machines has no meaning, no purpose other than following whatever prompt was thrown its way. There is no inspiration, no social context, no lived experience behind these soulless imitations. But Silicon Valley techbros don't care about this because all they want is to watch their graphs go up.
However, the genie is out of the bottle. Anyone running a beefy enough machine can run their own generative AI based on whatever materials they want to train it in. The only solution is a wide-scale social and legislative one, otherwise we'll see a lot of damage done to artists and their livelihoods. AI models should only be trained on materials where artists explicitly agree to have their artwork trained for it, and/or artists should be hired and compensated for specifically making content for these models. Using artwork to train these models without the artists' permission should be treated as copyright infringement.
There's also the huge, huge issue that artwork created by these machines has no meaning, no purpose other than following whatever prompt was thrown its way. There is no inspiration, no social context, no lived experience behind these soulless imitations. But Silicon Valley techbros don't care about this because all they want is to watch their graphs go up.
Wouldn't this just create a black market for tools that don't add these markers? Then you didn't solve any problems, you just antagonized people that want to use these tools and gave more business to law firms.
This is one of the few times I'll say that a free market can figure itself out. There will inevitably be demand for human-made digital art, just like there's demand for organic eggs and milk. Big business will use AI as heavily as they use antibiotics, but this just gives people and businesses that do not a competitive edge.
The device is grifting images off the Internet that most likely are already copyrighted.
The only person claiming AI is doing all the work is you. Graphic design is more than just AI generating an image or a graphic.
For instance, I’m not an illustrator. So I can either source an illustration from a stock library like Envato, have an illustrator create it for me, or have AI generate something for me. Then, I take said illustration and place it into my graphic design project. It’s just one part of the overall design. Not the entire thing.
There are pros and cons to each approach.
I sympathize with the sentiment, but in reality - the end consumer of product does not care if the artist / designer used AI augmentation in their workflow or not. They care about results and cost.
In effect, what they are guaranteeing is that the cost for projects created using their tools will stay higher. I'm afraid this is not a sustainable path.
In effect, what they are guaranteeing is that the cost for projects created using their tools will stay higher. I'm afraid this is not a sustainable path.
If you're using generative AI to make your illustration, and that AI model was trained on materials for which the artists were not compensated, it's no different than you finding a watermark-free copy of a stock picture and using that without paying the artist for your use of their art.
You could use this same argument to justify piracy: I don't care how much cast and crew had to be paid, I care about costs (i.e., I don't want to incur any to enjoy this movie).
Yes, if your goal is to make a living, you had better be able to compete.
Seems many in this thread are stuck on one way AI can be used, and I agree I am against it for creating art. Not against it as a tool. As an example, I have a client that was having a charity golf tournament. They had one photo they wanted to use for the background for everything. Photo was only in portrait and I needed a landscape image. This is an example of the image I had, not the same one, but something similar:
Now for various print pieces for this tournament I needed the image to be landscape. In less than a minute thanks to generative AI I have this:
And for other pieces I can remove the man, the hole, the ball, all with ease, saving me tons of time and allowing me to get on with my work quickly and efficiently. I charge the client less as the time it takes to alter is less. This is a basic example that exludes everything that goes over top of these images as it was used for various pieces like postcards, tickets, posters, lawn signs, etc. It is not art, it is not sold as art, it is commercial graphical work. AI won't go anywhere as it is an incredible tool that is utilized my professionals like myself on a daily basis. I don't think it is quite there to replace stock photography itself, there is always something wonky about completely original generative ai creations. A little experiment that I know will be difficult, but can you spot anything weird about the image below? It might be hard to believe but it was created with AI in Photoshop!
The romantic and noble idea of AI is for humans to work less and have more time to do things they love. Reality is something different.
It doesn't matter what Procreate thinks. It matters what users think.
Some people want a computer or a machine to take the load off their back.
Not everyone using generative AI wants the machine to do all the work.
If Procreate thinks a computer shouldn't assist they should remove all algorithms from their app that assist with smoothing and paint simulation.
Heck, they should close their company and tell artists to go back to painting on paper and canvas if they really believe that art should be completely manual and natural.
Some people want a computer or a machine to take the load off their back.
Not everyone using generative AI wants the machine to do all the work.
If Procreate thinks a computer shouldn't assist they should remove all algorithms from their app that assist with smoothing and paint simulation.
Heck, they should close their company and tell artists to go back to painting on paper and canvas if they really believe that art should be completely manual and natural.
Of all companies to worry less about regarding AI, Apple has taken a much more cautious and conservative approach to incorporating generative AI into their products. Deferring, the heavy handed generation to 3rd parties, while keeping their image generation limited to the more playful side of it. I seriously doubt they care whether or not a developer calls out AI in a negative light.
Again, it’s telling that Apple separates “Apple Intelligence” from other AI features in their products; using that marketing to specific generative technologies keeping recognition and classification in their own lane.
There's plenty of **** "art" made with procreate and photoshop.
There's plenty of **** art made with every tool ever since man scribbled on a cave wall.
Generative AI or CGI didn't invent **** art.
A thousand times this. Pandora's box has been opened. The regulations needed to stop this would have to be draconian and compromising on all sorts of personal integrity.