Procreate, the popular digital illustration app, has made a bold statement by rejecting generative AI technology. The app, designed by Australian firm Savage Interactive, was launched in 2011 to revolutionize tablet computing, specifically on the Apple iPad. However, its CEO, James Cuda, has now taken a firm stance against generative AI, stating, “I really fucking hate generative AI.” Cuda believes that generative AI is detrimental to artists and their creative process.
Procreate has even created a webpage, procreate.com/ai, outlining its commitment to not using generative AI in its products. The company believes that generative AI is stripping the humanity out of art and leading us towards a barren future. While Procreate acknowledges the merits of machine learning, it firmly believes that generative AI poses a moral threat to human creativity.
This anti-generative AI position has garnered support from artists who feel that the technology and leading software applications leveraging it have exploited and stolen from artists. Many of these applications have scraped artists’ works without permission, compensation, or consent to train their models. Procreate’s rejection of generative AI has been seen as a bold move that aligns with the concerns of these artists.
However, some argue that Procreate’s stance is inconsistent, considering its embrace of other disruptive technologies like touchscreens and styluses. The argument that rejecting generative AI supports “human creativity” is also seen as a straw man argument since humans are still required to input prompts and adjust them to create images with generative AI applications. Humans are still driving the technology even in the case of generative AI software.
Nevertheless, Procreate’s rejection of generative AI seems to be a calculated marketing move. It allows the company to stand out in a market where rival illustration and creation software, like Canva and Adobe Creative Cloud, have rushed to introduce generative AI features to mixed user feedback.
Procreate’s stance is just one example of the ongoing debate around generative AI. Some defend and embrace the technology, while others criticize its ethical, moral, and legal implications. Artists and creators have raised concerns about the sources and processes used for training generative AI models. Legal rulings are still pending on whether the mass scraping and use of artworks by generative AI companies constitute copyright infringement.
Overall, it is evident that there are many holdouts and individuals resistant to embracing generative AI. They view the technology as exploitative and morally compromised. Despite the advancements in generative AI, these critics are not afraid to voice their concerns and call out the technology for its perceived flaws.
