If you’ve been paying consideration this previous yr, it appears each app—from Adobe’s Photoshop to Canva—is chasing the white rabbit that’s AI. James Cuda, the CEO of iPad-centric illustration app Procreate, got here out swinging Sunday with a easy assertion: “I actually f*cking hate generative AI.”
In a press release posted to Twitter, Cuda stated, “I don’t like what’s taking place within the trade, and I don’t like what it’s doing to artists. We’re not going to be introducing any generative AI into our merchandise.”
We’re by no means going there. Creativity is made, not generated.
You can learn extra at ✨ #procreate #noaiart pic.twitter.com/AnLVPgWzl3— Procreate (@Procreate) August 18, 2024
The firm’s web page about its plans for AI is equally acerbic. It reiterates lots of the similar complaints artists, illustrators, graphic designers, and different creatives have had about AI artwork mills.
The largest AI fashions are constructed on high of billions of scraped pictures from the net, together with the copyrighted work of hundreds {of professional} and newbie artists. Some anti-AI advocates have even recommended that artists poison their pictures to disrupt AI coaching.
On its web page, Procreate says, “Generative AI is ripping the humanity out of issues. Built on a basis of theft, the know-how is steering us towards a barren future.” Procreate claims it doesn’t have entry to customers’ artwork and doesn’t observe customers’ exercise.
Artists Throw Their Support Behind Procreate for Anti-AI Arguments
Artists on-line praised Procreate, particularly highlighting Cuda’s blunt phrasing. Concept artist Karla Ortiz wrote, “Now THIS is how an organization for artists helps artists.” Director and artist Jorge Gutierrez wrote, “Procreate 1, Adobe 0.”
Now THIS is how an organization for artists helps artists! By respecting and empowering them, NOT by profiting from them! Good on Procreate for being on the proper aspect of historical past, and searching ahead to regardless of the workforce does subsequent 🙌
— Karla Ortiz (@kortizart) August 19, 2024
We’ve seen some firms that appeared initially hesitant and even hostile to AI ultimately come round to extoll its virtues (no matter these could also be). Getty Images beforehand sued Stable Diffusion makers Stability AI for utilizing the inventory photograph websites’ pictures with out permission. A couple of months later, it launched its AI picture generator onto the platform. The firm claimed the AI mannequin was constructed solely with pictures the corporate controls.
Getty isn’t alone there. Shutterstock and Adobe Stock additionally created their very own AI picture mills based mostly on pictures every owns the rights to. The firms successfully grandfathered in each current creator who shared their work on the inventory picture websites and promised to pay them some more cash for utilizing their pictures for AI.
Adobe Has Taken Heat for its Firefly AI Model
Artists on-line have in contrast Procreate’s anti-AI message to Adobe, an organization that has virtually drowned its merchandise in AI options. The firm has pushed Photoshop’s Firefly AI picture generator arduous over the previous months, increasing its photograph growth capabilities and entry amongst appropriate platforms. That mannequin relies on pictures taken from Adobe Stock, although a Bloomberg report from April revealed the mannequin additionally incorporates different AI pictures into its coaching set.
Despite claims it’s solely utilizing content material it owns, the corporate has been determined to patch up relations with artists. In June, the corporate modified its phrases of service to indicate it would take customers’ pictures and use them to coach AI. It modified its TOS to make clear it received’t “practice generative AI fashions in your or your clients’ content material until you’ve submitted the content material to the Adobe Stock market.”
Last yr, a number of high-profile artists sued large AI firms, together with the makers of Midjourney and Stable Diffusion, alleging the AI firms stole their copyrighted work with out permission. Last week, the California decide supervising the case, William Orrick, let the case transfer ahead into discovery.
