iPad Illustration App Procreate Condemns Generative AI

[PsykX]

I'm torn in between, I mean Generative AI is such a great technology and we all know it's there to stay.
But we have to be extremely careful.

When I saw Google pushing a "Reimagine part of the image" feature to the masses in the next version of Android, I mean... this will be dangerous, very good for scammers and fake news.

 

[brookter1]

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.

Why do you think it's a bad thing to antagonise people who want to mislead their customers about the provenance of the work they are pretending to have done? Decent people, decent companies, will accept the need for honesty. Just because it's difficult to regulate things for the greater good doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

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.

Reputable companies will acknowledge the assistance. We're talking about passing off creative work as your own, not stopping people using AI altogether.

 

[Eureka20]

I can hardly draw a stick figure, but I'm purchasing a license tonight in support.

the fantastic thing about drawing is-- you can always learn. I think you'll enjoy the app and if you kick around the internet and find some tutorials for drawing basics, you should be able to develop your skills

 

[atomic.flip]

As an artist myself, I believe the genuine dilemma is establishing a value for your own creations. If what you make today is something that is not unlike something else then the challenge is far greater. I don’t believe we can firewall the use of AI in content creation but we can certainly try and validate the source of a work and then apply value towards that.

The matter of training AI with other artists work. Obviously this needs to be sorted out. If it’s in the public domain then it’s fair game. But like Reddit and other sources have begun to firewall their libraries of content from AI the same needs to be done for stock photo repositories etc.

 

[ellpee]

Apple should have stuck to their original instincts and stayed out of the AI game. The fact they sold so many phones over the years despite the mediocre-at-best Siri shows no one is clamoring for this at all.

 

[starman111]

Kudos to them for taking a stand against AI. I think they made the right choice.

 

[NewOldStock]

Not getting rid of the paint brush good for them!

 

[stinksroundhere]

Kudos to them for taking a stand against AI. I think they made the right choice.

They're not making a stand. They don't have a machine learning product. But they do use automation and algorithms throughout both Procreate and Procreate Dreams.

If they really believe in handicraft without machines they should shut down and tell people to go back to paper, canvas and cels.

Otherwise they should shut up and let people do whatever they want on their computers.

 

[attila]

I do understand this tKe, but only to a certain extent. It caters more to the art-for-arts sake where one creates art for their own pleasure, which is fine, but let’s not rule out the benefits of a feature such a playgrounds from a productivity perspective.

For instance, imagine creating a Keynote or document where you needed an image to add context to the subject. Rather than going on Google to find an image that doesn’t fit in style, looks poor, or isn’t royalty free, you have the ability to let the device create one for you that may look far better, and crucially is quicker and easier.

Gen "AI" images look poor, never fit in style, and aren't royalty free.

 

[bigboy29]

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).

Hence piracy is still a thing.

However, there is a difference here. When doing piracy, you simply do piracy. Sure.

However, as the consumer of someone's services (let's say designers), you will certainly not go and ask for the proof of their Adobe Creative Cloud (example only) licenses, before doing business with them. Ultimately, you do not care the toolset they use to create a product, as long as the product is in the format and quality you need.

The analogy would be to go and seek designers who advertise to use pirated software only. The analogy between end user doing piracy vs. end user paying for someone else's work (and how efficient they are when doing that work, which translates into hours) - does not hold.

 

[Kottu]

I don't need my phone or Mac to create a picture doesn't exist or add a person where it shouldn't But being able to edit old pictures with a click or two would be awesome. That too without making the people unrecognisable.

 

[dylanwho]

I would love everyone to think about it twice and foresee where we are going. Yet people are too lazy to learn and are just happy to create something without any effort (and also any respect). It's the dumbing-down of the mass and everyone is foolishly jumping in.
Sure AI can do incredible things and be very useful, the issue is that humans are using it. It will eventually just go wrong. Unless we control its use and create some laws which seems impossible.
I love Procreate's statement, but I'm afraid this perspective won't last long.
And if AI could spare myself from rolling my eyes whenever I read statement like "you have to learn to use it you'll be left behind" (entering a prompt, so much to learn, above all if you're already a digital artist with some background) or "artists are always inspired by something" (this comparison is completely insane)...

"It's a tOoL"

Nah, it's a plagiarism delivery service. An end-to-end factory black box with a bot inside that holds enough tools to replace hundreds or thousands of artists at rock bottom prices to satisfy one end-user, who will bitch about it if it isn't FREE.

 

[richpjr]

I can ask the same question about my boss tbh. If I'm doing all the work what's he doing?

Motivating you to do your work. Your boss gets paid for inspiration, not perspiration!

 

[Eso]

Translation: generative AI licensing is way too expensive for us

In all seriousness, I definitely respect their position. Unfortunately, there is a pretty low percentage of people with artistic talent. People who can imagine in image in their mind and get it on to a screen/paper with reasonable accuracy.

There’s a hell of a lot more people who can get real value out of describing what they want and having an AI create an image that’s good enough.

 

[Blue Nova]

I've been a graphic designer for over 20 years. I don't see generative AI going away anytime soon. Hate to say it, but you might as well learn how to use it to your advantage or get left behind.

I’m a graphic designer and a video editor and would not use any AI in my designs, I create everything on my own. But I’m aware of the AI just like you said it’s not going away. I take my own photos, I shoot my own videos and edit them. And the rest I use Adobe Illustrator (AI) lol.
Although I use ChatGPT effectively for text, like rewriting, help compose emails etc. and searching for information bypassing all the ads in Safari, within seconds.

 

[dylanwho]

Translation: generative AI licensing is way too expensive for us

In all seriousness, I definitely respect their position. Unfortunately, there is a pretty low percentage of people with artistic talent. People who can imagine in image in their mind and get it on to a screen/paper with reasonable accuracy.

There’s a hell of a lot more people who can get real value out of describing what they want and having an AI create an image that’s good enough.

That last part may be true, but "I'm an artist" is disingenuous as hell.

 

[wonderings]

I’m a graphic designer and a video editor and would not use any AI in my designs, I create everything on my own. But I’m aware of the AI just like you said it’s not going away. I take my own photos, I shoot my own videos and edit them. And the rest I use Adobe Illustrator (AI) lol.
Although I use ChatGPT effectively for text, like rewriting, help compose emails etc. and searching for information bypassing all the ads in Safari, within seconds.

So you would not use AI to help aid you with graphical parts of what you do, but using it for rewriting is somehow ok within your moral framework? Why not hire a writer, someone with a real trained skill at writing captivating text, or easy to read and informative? Or taking writing classes and hone that skill just as you did your other skills?

I think most of the posts in this thread are very short sighted on AI and its uses as a tool. I use AI in various ways, and one way has replaced using google for answers or how to's. There are times I can't figure out how to do something and the go to would have been google, now (in most cases) I can ask AI and it will give me a step by step guide on how to do something. As an example I had a project a few years ago that had a complex data merge into Indesign creating unique QR codes that when scanned loaded the contacts info into the phones address book. This had to fill in specific fields in Indesign's QR code generator. I spent way too much time googling and using forums to try and get an answer, put the job on hold as I had yet to find a solution. Then with some desperation I asked ChatGPT and in the 30 seconds it took to give me a reply I had my answer and a solution. There are positives to AI that actually help and make life easier. There is no doubt there are horrors to AI as well, just as the internet has its good and bad uses.

 

[now i see it]

This decision will have negative consequences.

(Text generated by a chat bot)

 

[bogusmerlin]

I use procreate to work on my Firefly creations 😬

 

[neuropsychguy]

"Generative AI is ripping the humanity out of things."

What does this mean?

"Built on a foundation of theft, the technology is steering us toward a barren future."

No and no.

 

[RobertoDLV]

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.

One should not understand the issue at all by writing things like this.
You have to make "**** "art"" to evolve as an artist. There is no way round (... yet making **** art with an AI is a whole new level of ****iness if you ask me!)

AI and CGI have nothing in common. CGI is not a mere prompt thing. It's been replacing a whole team of "traditional" artists by another whole team of CGI artists in worst cases. It's just a simple change of tool for a different result. And there is a WORLD between being a CGI artist (or being a "traditional" artist), and entering plain words on a keyboard in a couple of seconds just waiting for it to do all the job (that would be done by a whole team in some cases) and see what comes up.

 

[PassiveSmoking]

Procreate are good people. No subscriptions, one time payment gets you the app for good (so far!) and they appear to actually listen to the people who use their product.

 

[xSushi]

I've been a graphic designer for over 20 years. I don't see generative AI going away anytime soon. Hate to say it, but you might as well learn how to use it to your advantage or get left behind.

Same here and unfortunately this is 💯 the truth. My employer already expects me to incorporate it as often as I can.

This resonates with me as well. Our corporate creative team has recently hired an "AI Designer" to focus on training AI using our article database to generate stock imagery. The idea is that this will free up time for us, the other designers, to focus more on actual design work instead of spending significant portions of our week sourcing imagery. However, I can’t help but feel a bit uneasy about it.

While I appreciate the stance taken by Procreate’s CEO, the reality is that most of us in the industry can’t ignore the changes that AI is bringing to our field.

 

[MrENGLISH]

I’m a graphic designer and a video editor and would not use any AI in my designs, I create everything on my own. But I’m aware of the AI just like you said it’s not going away. I take my own photos, I shoot my own videos and edit them. And the rest I use Adobe Illustrator (AI) lol.
Although I use ChatGPT effectively for text, like rewriting, help compose emails etc. and searching for information bypassing all the ads in Safari, within seconds.

So you would not use AI to help aid you with graphical parts of what you do, but using it for rewriting is somehow ok within your moral framework? Why not hire a writer, someone with a real trained skill at writing captivating text, or easy to read and informative? Or taking writing classes and hone that skill just as you did your other skills?

I think most of the posts in this thread are very short sighted on AI and its uses as a tool. I use AI in various ways, and one way has replaced using google for answers or how to's. There are times I can't figure out how to do something and the go to would have been google, now (in most cases) I can ask AI and it will give me a step by step guide on how to do something. As an example I had a project a few years ago that had a complex data merge into Indesign creating unique QR codes that when scanned loaded the contacts info into the phones address book. This had to fill in specific fields in Indesign's QR code generator. I spent way too much time googling and using forums to try and get an answer, put the job on hold as I had yet to find a solution. Then with some desperation I asked ChatGPT and in the 30 seconds it took to give me a reply I had my answer and a solution. There are positives to AI that actually help and make life easier. There is no doubt there are horrors to AI as well, just as the internet has its good and bad uses.

I'm a motion designer first, graphic designer second. I think it is understandable for any artist to be intimidated by AI.
Honestly, I'm still intimidated by just how much it can do and not sure how I feel about its inclusion into iOS and macOS moving forward.

But I also recognize its strengths as a tool that can help with certain tasks in my day-to-day workflow. As with you, Blue Nova, my boss wants me to use AI to help speed up scripts for the content we are producing. It doesn't pump out flawless scripts and often I have to make tweaks here and there. But it has improved turnaround time for such a task.

When it comes to actual design work, I've only really used AI to help generate missing backgrounds and similar things. Could I spend the time to do it myself? Sure. But asking the Generate Fill in Photoshop to do it saves a lot of time that can then go towards other tasks/projects.

I have yet to try using ChatGTP to help with After Effects Expressions. I've heard good things about it and will probably give it a try in the future. I could see it helping me improve the builds of my motion design projects.

For artists, AI is meant to be a tool to help you save time. For general public, it is a tool to help them create things that they don't have the ability to create themselves.

I also wanted to point out that when I search for images on Adobe Stock, I always turn off the AI results. Mostly because when I am searching their photo database, I am searching for a real photo of something. If I wanted an AI generated image, I'd create one with my own descriptive prompts myself.

 

[neuropsychguy]

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.

The issue with that comparison is it not how ML methods work. There is no "copy-paste".

Is your issue with "AI" or using living "artists" (in quotes because training data can come from many sources, including people who are not "artists") for training data? What about using Van Gogh's work to train data? Is that okay because he's dead? I'd say it's perfectly acceptable in that case.

Let's move away from "AI" for a bit. Let's say Artist A likes how Artist B paints. Is it okay for Artist A to create works that look a fair amount like Artist B's work? Artist A is not claiming to create forgeries of B's work, just creating things that are similar. Is this a problem? If so, why? If not, why is "AI" a problem. That's closer to what it does than what you wrote.

What if we have a couple living artists. What if Artist X has art that looks a lot like Artist Y's work? Artist X gives permission and Y does not. If the "AI" generates something similar to X and Y's work, is that stealing Artist Y's work? No, because it's based on X's training data.