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
Apple pioneered ML and ML is great. He is talking about generative AI
iPad illustration app Procreate today announced that it has no plans to bring generative AI to its software, setting itself apart from many competitors who have embraced the technology.
Article Link: iPad Illustration App Procreate Condemns Generative AI
iPad illustration app Procreate today announced that it has no plans to bring generative AI to its software, setting itself apart from many competitors who have embraced the technology.
The decision comes at a time when many companies in the digital art space, such as Adobe, are rapidly integrating AI capabilities into their products and services. Procreate's stance is grounded in a commitment to preserving what it describes as the "humanity" of creative work. The company issued a statement on its website that expressed strong reservations about the impact of generative AI on the creative process:James Cuda, the CEO of Procreate, reinforced the position in a video posted on X (formerly Twitter), expressing his dislike of generative AI and explaining that Procreate's products are designed with the intention that "a human will be creating something." The announcement appears to have resonated with many digital artists who have expressed concerns about the integration of AI into creative tools.
Article Link: iPad Illustration App Procreate Condemns Generative AI
But then it's not the person creating it. Sure I get that it can be used as a tool in some ways, but I doubt users would use a generative image tool and go "I will just use this as inspiration and change everything here and make my own".
That is not really a tool, that is like going to McDonalds and then place the burgers on a plate at home and say "I used some tools to get it done, but I made the food!"
All these bootlickers in the comments saying that AI can be useful piss me off. Completely dismissing the fact that generative AI is trained on STOLEN art.
Good on Procreate for not selling its dignity away.
Good on Procreate for not selling its dignity away.
And so was I? I never mentioned anything about ML. What do you think Image Playground, Genmoji, and the writing tools coming with iOS 18 are?
Serious questions from someone wanting to have a better understanding.
How has it been stolen?
Was it uploaded to the web and data mined in some sort of way?
Was it stolen directly off someone's device without their knowledge?
How much of the art being generated is actually reproducing the original referenced artwork?
I know this is mostly a conversation about AI generated art, but what about AI generated text? If I ask ChatGPT to create a list of the Top 10 things forum members love about Apple and use MacRumors public forum as a source, are you saying that it will steal from an article (whether it be MacRumors or somewhere else) rather than reference the public comments of forum members and formulate a list of its own? Because my understanding of Generative AI is that it is looking at multiple sources and formulating its own response based on public data. Wouldn't it be doing the same with generative art?
If the generative AI is trained on stolen art, and/or is reproducing stolen art, then I agree that is wrong and shouldn't be supported.
At the end of the day it all comes down to one thing, money. If AI can reduce the amount of time it takes to do something then company bosses/owners WILL use it/introduce it/incorporate it into their company/business. Why? because company bosses/owners are always looking for ways to reduce costs so they can make more profit for themselves and if AI allows them to do it then they will use it.
AI WILL replace a huge majority of graphical artists. The ONLY human element will be 'touch up' graphical artists, those tasked with putting the final touches and sparkle to works produced by AI.
For example, a company want's to market their new product. They need posters and other marketing material made. Say for example it's a complex looking product which means it will take a week for a group of human graphical artists to come up with idea's, rough drafts, sample drawings, test drawings then the final drawings for approval but an AI company says they can have all the initial work done in a couple of hours for approval and the finished work done the following day. Who is the client going to chose, the company that takes a week with humans or a company that uses AI with one human (touch up work) which can do the work in half the time at half the cost.
What is happening with AI is no different to what happen with robotics. Look at what happened when robotics came onto the scene, they started to replace humans in many industries. Instead of humans picking up parts and placing them into production machinery or onto conveyor belts, now you have robotic machines do it. Many factories are now fully automated only requiring a small number of onsite engineers to fix the machines when they go wrong. The automated machines do not moan or complain, they do not need toilet breaks, they do not need sleep, they do not need holidays, they do not need promotions, they do not need pensions or company medical benefits. They work 24/7. No human can do that and they are more costly than machines (in the long term).
Company bosses/owners will do EXACTLY the same with AI, they will find ways to replace humans because it would mean more profit to them. AI will not be able to replace every human job just like automated machines cannot replace every human job but company bosses/owners will sure give it a darn good try. If they can replace humans with AI, they will do.
AI WILL replace a huge majority of graphical artists. The ONLY human element will be 'touch up' graphical artists, those tasked with putting the final touches and sparkle to works produced by AI.
For example, a company want's to market their new product. They need posters and other marketing material made. Say for example it's a complex looking product which means it will take a week for a group of human graphical artists to come up with idea's, rough drafts, sample drawings, test drawings then the final drawings for approval but an AI company says they can have all the initial work done in a couple of hours for approval and the finished work done the following day. Who is the client going to chose, the company that takes a week with humans or a company that uses AI with one human (touch up work) which can do the work in half the time at half the cost.
What is happening with AI is no different to what happen with robotics. Look at what happened when robotics came onto the scene, they started to replace humans in many industries. Instead of humans picking up parts and placing them into production machinery or onto conveyor belts, now you have robotic machines do it. Many factories are now fully automated only requiring a small number of onsite engineers to fix the machines when they go wrong. The automated machines do not moan or complain, they do not need toilet breaks, they do not need sleep, they do not need holidays, they do not need promotions, they do not need pensions or company medical benefits. They work 24/7. No human can do that and they are more costly than machines (in the long term).
Company bosses/owners will do EXACTLY the same with AI, they will find ways to replace humans because it would mean more profit to them. AI will not be able to replace every human job just like automated machines cannot replace every human job but company bosses/owners will sure give it a darn good try. If they can replace humans with AI, they will do.
Which is exactly why I have been doing my best to keep up with AI now. I don't want to be the guy who gets left behind as the industry continues to evolve. It's like a graphic designer or video editor refusing to use a computer because they believe the traditional way is better. Eventually, you either need to catch up with the times or find a new career path.
OpenAI and ChatGPT were caught on numerous occasions scanning the websites that host pictures, news, online libraries, online book repositories and so forth and so forth and taking from them what they owned so the AI bot's could learn. Neither of them had permission to do what they was doing hence why a number of businesses sued Google and Microsoft for not only not having permission to do what they were doing but also stealing others intellectual property.
That is why you will read that AI is founded theft, millions upon millions of other peoples data/property stolen by AI bots.
There are many who will say the old ways are still the best. Take movies for example, some of the most talked about movies still to this day was done the 'old way', the 3 original Star Wars movies, Aliens, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, The God Father, and of course many many more. Yes there was no doubt some digital enhancement going on at the time BUT nothing like it is today which is top heaving in digital effects, CGI and green screen.
It will therefore be the same with art. Take for example the original animated Disney movies. They are still considered the best in the business even with all the digitally produced animated movies out their.
AI will have it's uses BUT it will always be pale in comparison to the human touch.
AI is here to stay, it's not going away. It will consolidate and the 'gold rush' wave will end.
Again, I'm reading messages that are exactly like when people thought the internet ( and countless other disrupting technologies entered main stream ) was a fad and would die off.
People's best option is to embrace AI instead of fighting it. Just like the internet and others. AI is an extremely useful tool.
What? ML has been around for decades, Apple certainly did not pioneer ML!
Again, I'm reading messages that are exactly like when people thought the internet ( and countless other disrupting technologies entered main stream ) was a fad and would die off.
People's best option is to embrace AI instead of fighting it. Just like the internet and others. AI is an extremely useful tool.
What? ML has been around for decades, Apple certainly did not pioneer ML!
Last edited:
Well so far all I have seen AI being used for is for no good rather than good. Yes AI has been used for games such as chess, yes AI has been used to produce it's own take on pictures of art BUT that pales into comparison to all the BAD things that AI is currently being used for which is to copy the voices of human actors, to manipulate pictures of female celebrities' and actresses for adult entertainment purposes, to be used for plagiarism in students college/university work, to steal music riffs and put them into other bit's of music, to steal images and insert them into other works of art. Using someone else's voice in narration, dictation or voice overs.
Go see what is happening over at reddit and Devianart. Both are on a losing the battle against AI manipulated images and AI created images of young females and of females having their clothing digitally removed by AI.
Go look at youtube and the millions of content creators using AI to narrate their video's because they cannot be bothered to do it themselves OR they do not have the language skills to do it so they get AI to do it for them.
There is probably good uses of AI out there but it seems to be being drowned out by all the bad uses of it.
AI might be here to stay but at the present moment it is here to stay for the wrong reasons in my opinion.
Generative AI is a totally different thing to the AI that perhaps helps decide the stroke of the brush when you make a sweeping curve for example.
It's just against Procreate's model. It's a one time purchase app in a sea of subscriptions that's super simple to use. If you want Adobe's cockpit-style UX poor-performing apps, you can go subscribe to their services, and they know well why the people who prefer Procreate love what it offers.
AI art is here to stay. You either learn to take advantage of it or get left behind.
If you seriously say that "Well so far all I have seen AI being used for is for no good rather than good", then I'm not sure what sort of world you live in.
Research that will result in new treatment for diseases are being identified, better reliable and faster pre-screening for diseases using AI...
It can be used in a work environment to improve performance - without needing to submit confidential information to aid the knowledge learning base.
... and a whole lot else.
I've benefited from it, positively, on a personal level.
AI can be used for positive and negative, just like all things, and there are downsides such as voice actors, that is a great concern. This is all part of the maturing process. That doesn't mean to say we should stop using it.
Last edited:
Get ready for unemployment to rise. AI will have huge impact on many industries. Corporations will LOVE the fact that they can lay off a huge portion of the creative workforce. This will improve the efficiency of any company at the expense of workers.
At the same time, there will be other classes abusing legislation to insulate themselves against AI - just to secure their jobs - regressing progress and efficiency - to the detriment of us all.
The class struggle is not new.
At the same time, there will be other classes abusing legislation to insulate themselves against AI - just to secure their jobs - regressing progress and efficiency - to the detriment of us all.
The class struggle is not new.
I wonder if that is why companies like Procreate and Serif Affinity are staying away from AI at the moment. It is a one time cash influx and in order to offer generative AI features they either need to be buying it from another company on a monthly basis or host and run it all themselves which would be expensive, especially with no monthly revenue coming in.
I do the same thing with Adobe stock. Had a job for a farm, just a sign for a stall and they wanted a serene looking farm. Searched for farms with Adobe Stock and got a really nice looking image. Incorporated it into the design, client loved it. As I was prepping the file for production I noticed some of the animals looked a bit strange when I zoomed in. To my surprise it was AI and many of the chickens were a bit mutated in the way that only AI can do. I removed the bad ones, contacted the client to apologize and gave them some other options. In the end they were happy with the AI image and I was stuck using it. There is something soulless about AI generated images, especially with people. This is why I use it for touch up and light generative work. I am never creating images purely from nothing and using that. But hey, it is only a matter of time before all those adds showing kids getting ready for school this September are all AI generated. Hard to believe but the image below is generative AI in Photoshop. Shocking I know! Photographers run for the hills, your time is up!
This sentiment right here is just baffling (you're not the only one making it in this thread)
Why must anyone learn to take advantage? Why must anyone that has already dedicated their labor toward art take advantage of a tool that is not pushed by artists but by executives in the tech industry trying to sell a product?
This is the push back of gen AI - that people are trying to replace the labor of art with a factory line style of output - and rightfully so.
There are those who will like the "pretty" things AI can do for art, giving them exactly what they want with zero effort. These are not the type of people who truly appreciate art though and would not be spending money on art. So I don't see the danger to real artists as AI will never be able to replace them, AI has no experiences, no life it is has lived with all the ups and downs that inspire it creatively. It is algorithms that mimic other works. Humans do that as well, they learn from other artists, specifically the greats. And those who want to study those great works of art can look at them and study them for free on their own or go to school for it. So really everyone is influenced by someone else and are taking their style and using it for their own creations. The danger is hotel art aka corporate art that has no soul or depth, they are simply made for the masses that could not care less about what a piece might or could be saying.
I asked ChatGPT your first question. Here's some of its answer:
Concept Art Generation: help artists quickly generate multiple variations of concept art for presentations.
Speeding Up Workflows: AI tools can automate repetitive tasks like coloring, shading, or line work, allowing artists to focus on the more creative aspects of their work.
Idea Inspiration and Exploration: AI can suggest ideas or generate random illustrations based on certain keywords or themes.
Enhanced Detail and Refinement: after an artist creates a basic outline, AI can generate textures, patterns, or even realistic lighting effects to enhance the illustration
Accessibility: Generative AI can make illustration tools more accessible to people with disabilities or who lack formal training in art.
Collaboration and Iteration: AI can assist in collaborative projects by allowing multiple artists to input their ideas into a shared model, which can then generate a cohesive final product that reflects all contributors' styles and inputs.
I also asked it your second question and got these answers, in short:
Efficiency and Speed
Cost-Effectiveness
Client Demands
Exploring New Styles
Enhancement and Final Touches
Consistency in Large Projects
Accessibility
Creative Collaboration
Market Differentiation
I actually came up with my own answer to your second question, If genAI is used for reference, why not just use an actual reference? To wit:
Long story short: AI's place in BUSINESS art is to aggregate data from multiple sources in far less time and more comprehensively than gathering and collating data using human search. This saves a BUSINESS time, and in BUSINESS, time is MONEY. In BUSINESS, the goal is to make MONEY.
AI may or may not find a place in fine art, who knows, but it's already shown its worth in the BUSINESS of art.
How much longer are articles going to keep referring to X as formerly known as Twitter. Just use X already.
Consider the fact that most of the art we see every day is commercial in nature. AI can make commercial art far faster and in vastly more multiple iterations than even the most prolific artist. That saves time. in business, time is MONEY.
So let the next Picasso use his analog tools. But recognize the value of Ai in generating art for business. Protease is a fine maker of buggy whips. They may well become the last maker of fine buggy whips, serving a community of luddites (do you get the Amish & Mennonite reference?). Will they buy enough buggy whips or upgrade their perfectly good buggy whips for new ones fast enough for Protease's survival?