Popular iPad design app Procreate is coming out against generative AI, and has vowed never to introduce generative AI features into its products. The company said on its website that although machine learning is a “compelling technology with a lot of merit,” the current path that generative AI is on is wrong for its platform.

Procreate goes on to say that it’s not chasing a technology that is a threat to human creativity, even though this may make the company “seem at risk of being left behind.”

Procreate CEO James Cuda released an even stronger statement against the technology in a video posted to X on Monday.

  • Blackmist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    Generative AI steals art.

    Procreate’s customers are artists.

    Stands to reason you don’t piss your customer base off.

      • paperd@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        You are right, generally, generative AI pirates art and the rest of the content on the internet.

        • ReCursing@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          That is at least borderline more correct, but it’s still wrong. It learns using a neural network much like, but much simpler than, the one in your head

          • paperd@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            It doesn’t “learn” anything, its a database with linear algebra. Using anthropomorphic adjectives only helps to entrench this useless and wasteful technology to regular people.

            • ReCursing@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              Trying to redefine the word “learn” won;t help your cause either. Stop being a luddite and realise that it is neither useless not wasteful

                • ReCursing@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m calling you a luddite because you’re being a luddite. AI is just a new medium, that’s all it is, you’re just scared of new technology just like how idiots were scared of photography a hundred and some years ago. You do not have an argument that holds any water because they were all made against photography, and many of them against pre-mixed paints before that!

                  Also I’m done arguing with anti-ai luddites because you are about as intractable as trump cultists. I’ll respond to a level or two of comments in good faith because someone else might see your nonsense and believe it but this deep it’s most likely you and me, and you’re not gonna be convinced of anything.

                  Stop being a luddite

                  • paperd@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Name calling is what people do when they don’t have any rational argument left, and you’ve done it twice.

      • yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Is it really not true? How many companies have been training their models using art straight out of the Internet while completely disregarding their creative licences or asking anyone for permission? How many times haven’t people got a result from a GenAI model that broke IP rights, or looked extremely similar to an already existing piece of art, and would probably get people sued? And how many of these models have been made available for commercial purposes?

        The only logical conclusion is that GenAI steals art because it has been constantly “fed” with stolen art.

        • ReCursing@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          It does not steal art. It does not store copies of art, it does not deprive anyone of their pictures, it does not remix other people’s pictures, it does not recreate other people’s pictures unless very very specifically directed to do so (and that’'s on the human not he AI), and even then it usually gets things “wrong”. If you don’t completely redefine theft then it does not steal art

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I think that’s a very broad statement. If you need a license to reproduce a piece of art then you need a license in order to feed it into an AI surely. itd the same thing, it’s training the AI to create works similar to that. At the very least they should compensate you for training their AI for them.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Why do you think it ingests all its content from. Problem isn’t the AI itself it’s the companies that operated but it’s not inaccurate to conflate the two things.

        I think you’ll be in a little disingenuous.

        • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I like how you completely dodge his argument with this. If training data isn’t considered transformative, then it’s copyright infringement, like piracy.

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yes I agree it’s copyright violation I think maybe you’re not reading my comment correctly? I’m responding to the guy saying that it isn’t copyright violation.

            What are you talking about? Did you understand the original comment?

            • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Your initial claim was that MLMs “steal” content to train on, which is plainly false. If MLM training data is theft, then piracy is theft. All this hate should be directed at the legal system that punishes individuals for piracy while enabling corporations to do the same.

              • Echo Dot
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                You need to take some pills or something because you’re swinging from two positions at the same time. You have a go at me because you think I’m saying copyright violation is acceptable and now you’re having to go at me because I corrected you and said I think it’s unacceptable.

                Please decide what you actually think before commenting

        • ReCursing@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          You’re being disingenuous by trying to redefine the concept of theft. It does not steal anything by any definition of the word. It learn using a neural network similar to, but much simpler than, the one in your head

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Thefts is defined as in law. If something is stolen I.e it is not compensated for, then it is theft. You can’t get around it by going “oh well technically it’s transformative by a non-human intelligence” that doesn’t work. The law not recognize AI systems as being intelligent entities, so they are therefore not capable of transformative work.

            This isn’t a matter of personal opinion it’s just what the law is. You can’t argue about it.

            • ReCursing@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m impressed you’ve managed to go from “wrong” to “not even wrong” - that is so far from correct that you can’t even conceive of the right answer. Stop being a luddite

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        How about “it’s complicated”? It certainly doesn’t steal art and it certainly does lower the need for humans to create art.

        • ReCursing@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Honestly the need for art has nothing to do with the urge to create art. People will create art no matter what and capitalism treats them like shit for it but that;s a totally different argument