Procreate defies AI trend, pledges “no generative AI” in its illustration app

Procreate CEO: "I really f—ing hate generative AI."

See full article...

 

[OrvGull]

I don't need to. Go to DeviantArt and look around. It's heaps of trash proudly presented for everyone to see.

Hey hear that guys? Some human art is bad, therefore all human art is bad and should be replaced by AI.

 

[OrvGull]

Tall Dwarf, in this very thread, has expresses his unbridled joy at the thought of creatives being put out of work and not being able to make a living doing art. And that's the same attitude expressed by all of these GenAI "fans". They don't like the art. They like that it hurts people who have skills that they're too lazy to develop.

Yeah, it's telling that AI developers went here first. Not replacing jobs where there are labor shortages. Not replacing menial work that people don't enjoy. No, they went straight for art, because their driving force is hatred of creatives , and has been since tech bros declared that they wanted to destroy the creative class because "information wants to be free."

 

[Tall Dwarf]

And yet, despite your assertions to the contrary, the drawings they've done are right there on the screen for all to see.

Where are the drawings that you've done, so we can see what a self-professed expert can do in comparison?

Do you need to be a carpenter to use a table? No. Do you need to be a cook to know food is spoiled? No. So, I don't need to prove my painting proficiency to call crap a crap. Also note that I didn't call myself an artist and didn't deny others a right to call themselves artists based on irrational made up criteria. Unlike scouldron101 and some other people here.

I posted scouldron101, mikefr16 and TheOfficialStarFruit "art" specifically in response to your claim:

You want to know the quickest way to fill an artist with anxiety and self-doubt? Ask to look through their sketchbook.

It is a rather obvious BS. This is a "sweeping generalization" people love to accuse me of. Plenty of artists are eager to show their sketchbooks full of crap.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

Hey hear that guys? Some human art is bad, therefore all human art is bad and should be replaced by AI.

You should work on your strawmans. See, I never said anything like that. So, by trying to clumsily misrepresent my position you just make yourself look dumb. And people who upvote you, naturally.

Not that it surprises me or anything.

 

[Marcus Andreus]

You xkcd was literally a stick figure with "citation needed" sign. It was ridiculous and I asked you what citation you need from me.

Apparently you have no idea yourself, so you wrote this ridiculous deflection. Pretending it was a sophisticated test of my abilities is just funny and pathetic. Not really sad.

So we were talking about accessibility, and I asserted that once you have a pencil and paper you can do art. Your response was that it takes "thousands of hours to make anything half decent." And I posted an xkcd strip about asking for citations.

Here's what I was hoping you'd infer from engaging with the art, and basically what I was going to ask before I replaced my original response with just the xkcd panel: Do you think Randall Munroe makes half decent art? I would argue that he does, despite him largely relying on stick figures. I don't know if you know this—since you don't seem to have much experience creating or engaging with non AI-generated images—but stick figures are actually a fairly basic form. People can master them fairly quickly, but still use them to create effective art. There are many artists who operate with other fairly simple forms. Mondrian's most famous works, for example.

So anyway, once you have a pencil and paper, you can do art. No computer needed. No fake standard of "quality" needed for "real art." No gatekeeping behind hundreds—if not thousands—of dollars worth of technology here.

More complex is not more art.

 

[Aurich]

So anyway, once you have a pencil and paper, you can do art. No computer needed.

YOU NEED YOUTUBE


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COgB3wV_P8k

 

[Scifigod]

YOU NEED YOUTUBE


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COgB3wV_P8k

But how do I use YouTube?!? Where's the instructional video for that?
Checkmate artists.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

So we were talking about accessibility, and I asserted that once you have a pencil and paper you can do art. Your response was that it takes "thousands of hours to make anything half decent." And I posted an xkcd strip about asking for citations.

Here's what I was hoping you'd infer from engaging with the art, and basically what I was going to ask before I replaced my original response with just the xkcd panel: Do you think Randall Munroe makes half decent art? I would argue that he does, despite him largely relying on stick figures. I don't know if you know this—since you don't seem to have much experience creating or engaging with non AI-generated images—but stick figures are actually a fairly basic form. People can master them fairly quickly, but still use them to create effective art. There are many artists who operate with other fairly simple forms. Mondrian's most famous works, for example.

So anyway, once you have a pencil and paper, you can do art. No computer needed. No fake standard of "quality" needed for "real art." No gatekeeping behind hundreds—if not thousands—of dollars worth of technology here.

More complex is not more art.

So, it was your utter failure to communicate your idea. I am not a mind reader. I see a picture with "citation needed" - I think you want a citation. So, learn to communicate, I guess.

Do you think Randall Munroe makes half decent art?

He obviously does not. It's stick figures, art doesn't get any more primitive than that. Well, there is banana taped to a wall, but we are talking about pictures.

Popularity of his comics is not related in any way to artistic values. It's humor and theme. He is funny and he found his niche on the market, that's it.

"I would argue that he does" - you can argue that Earth is flat, it doesn't make it true. Your assumption that I share your opinion made an ass of you. Better luck next time.

"People can master them fairly quickly" - you completely forgot the essential "half-decent" requirement.

So anyway, once you have a pencil and paper, you can do art. No computer needed. No fake standard of "quality" needed for "real art." No gatekeeping behind hundreds—if not thousands—of dollars worth of technology here.

Right, no gatekeeping. You have a banana, duct tape and a wall, you can make art. You have a bed you can make art. You have a random mass produced item, you can make art. Everyone is an artist.

You have a computer with AI software - you can't make art. That's where some weirdos here draw a line. Completely arbitrary and ridiculous. This is the line where gatekeeping starts apparently. Urinals are fine. Computer art - no.

Talking about accessibility. All you really need to start using AI art is a smartphone. Or access to any other computer connected to the Internet. No hundreds or thousands of dollars.

More complex is not more art.

And? Did I ever claim otherwise?

Note that most of the opponents of AI art base their criticism on false claim "it's just a prompt", or "it's too easy". But more complex is not more art - I am glad we agree about it.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

YOU NEED YOUTUBE


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COgB3wV_P8k

You sneer and lie because you can't argue.

YouTube videos are objectively helpful for a starting artist, with pen or AI model. Trying to make fun of it is dumb.

I really start seeing a pattern here. Apparently creative director is a very easy job.

 

[kalzekdor]

If you don't find the pursuit of a craft to be worth your limited free time on this earth, then you've made a very rational decision and there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect people to regard the output of an AI you're using with the same respect they would hold for art.

I don't. The same way I don't hold the same respect for a mass produced piece of IKEA furniture as I do for a hand carved masterpiece made by someone dedicated to their craft. But sometimes you just need something cheap that gets the job done.

 

[Aurich]

You sneer and lie because you can't argue.

YouTube videos are objectively helpful for a starting artist, with pen or AI model. Trying to make fun of it is dumb.

I really start seeing a pattern here. Apparently creative director is a very easy job.

Homie, you're just getting needled for having silly extreme views, that's all.

Of course YouTube is useful. I would be happy to link a channel with some excellent tutorials for both Procreate and Fresco for anyone with an iPad that's interesting.

Here, I'll just do it, I enjoy his content a lot: https://www.youtube.com/@chris-piascik

His style is just one way to draw, but the actual use of tools is really applicable to anyone.

What's ridiculous, and funny, is this assertion that nobody can learn to draw with a pencil and piece of paper without YouTube. I understand you're not an artist, and that's fine. Nobody actually cares if you can draw or not. But confidently asserting something you don't actually know the first thing about is how people stop taking anything you say seriously.

Dial it back, that's all.

 

[42Kodiak42]

I don't. The same way I don't hold the same respect for a mass produced piece of IKEA furniture as I do for a hand carved masterpiece made by someone dedicated to their craft. But sometimes you just need something cheap that gets the job done.

If art were an incredibly expensive thing to produce, I might see your point, but there are plenty of artists who don't ask that much for commissions. And we're talking about visual arts here, there aren't that many use cases where you need only the function of visual depiction that AI can accomplish.* Outside of needing character/creature portraits for running and making games as a hobbyist, outside of making throwaway memes with AI, I can't think of any use cases where this really opens doors.

* I can think of a lot of use cases where you need a generic visual depiction of something and not a full blown piece of art, but I haven't seen any generative AI that specialize in Icons, HUD elements, or other applications where clean images in a uniform style are required.

 

[s73v3r]

Yeah, unlike you guys I don't worship urinals and don't see any point in taping banana to a wall.

No, you just pretend like you could do art, without understanding anything about it at all.

I do know a lot about generative AI software though.

You very much don't.

 

[s73v3r]

He obviously does not. It's stick figures, art doesn't get any more primitive than that.

So to you, art doesn't have any actual meaning. It's just pictures meant to be pretty.

That explains an enormous amount about your misguided worldview.

Popularity of his comics is not related in any way to artistic values. It's humor and theme. He is funny and he found his niche on the market, that's it.

And you don't think that humor and theme is an enormous part of the art?

 

[Cthel]

15 minutes of AI-free Procreate silliness.



Have a nice weekend, folks

 

[Aurich]

As I mentioned earlier, I do have Procreate, I just generally prefer the drawing feel of Fresco. For anyone who's a Tekken fan and familiar with The Misfits (a rather niche combo maybe) this is a drawing I did in Fresco and a sticker I had made based on it.

Since I spend all day in digital worlds I like to find ways to turn ideas into something tangible. When I go to fighting game tournaments or host people in my arcade I like to be able to hand out stickers to people for fun.

 

[Marcus Andreus]

He obviously does not. It's stick figures, art doesn't get any more primitive than that. Well, there is banana taped to a wall, but we are talking about pictures.

"I would argue that he does" - you can argue that Earth is flat, it doesn't make it true. Your assumption that I share your opinion made an ass of you. Better luck next time.

And? Did I ever claim otherwise?

Buddy, I harbour no illusion that you share my opinion. Was I not clear on that? Maybe I do need to learn to communicate. I thought I was pretty clearly tweaking your arbitrary and absurd goalposts, that people need to spend thousands of hours to git gud enough to create something you deem to be "half decent." The absolute cheek. The gatekeeping! The person who doesn't even understand the intent of Fountain and how it's almost wholly anathema to AI generated images^※!

I mean, I guess you could have surprised me and said you thought Munroe made "half decent" art, but I expected you to say that the very successful (for myriad definitions of the word) web comic was not, in fact, "half decent" art. And everyone else would get a little chuckle. And here we are.

Anyway, you certainly imply in this very reply I've quoted that Munroe doesn't make "half decent" art because it is visually simple. You have repeatedly implied in this thread that simple works, or works that you find basic or vulgar, aren't art or are "less" art than more complex AI images. The inference I draw from that is that you require visual complexity—and only visual complexity—as the definition of art.

If that's not your intent then… learn to communicate, I guess?

Ceci n'est pas la Trahison des images.​

^※ I say almost because I could also argue an interpretation of Fountain that favours AI generated imagery, but I don't think that most people who present AI imagery do it with an intent compatible with that interpretation.

 

[s73v3r]

Buddy, I harbour no illusion that you share my opinion. Was I not clear on that? Maybe I do need to learn to communicate. I thought I was pretty clearly tweaking your arbitrary and absurd goalposts, that people need to spend thousands of hours to git gud enough to create something you deem to be "half decent." The absolute cheek. The gatekeeping! The person who doesn't even understand the intent of Fountain and how it's almost wholly anathema to AI generated images^※!

I mean, I guess you could have surprised me and said you thought Munroe made "half decent" art, but I expected you to say that the very successful (for myriad definitions of the word) web comic was not, in fact, "half decent" art. And everyone else would get a little chuckle. And here we are.

Anyway, you certainly imply in this very reply I've quoted that Munroe doesn't make "half decent" art because it is visually simple. You have repeatedly implied in this thread that simple works, or works that you find basic or vulgar, aren't art or are "less" art than more complex AI images. The inference I draw from that is that you require visual complexity—and only visual complexity—as the definition of art.

If that's not your intent then… learn to communicate, I guess?

View attachment 88645
Ceci n'est pas la Trahison des images.​

^※ I say almost because I could also argue an interpretation of Fountain that favours AI generated imagery, but I don't think that most people who present AI imagery do it with an intent compatible with that interpretation.

That's what I really didn't get about their dig at Munroe, but it also revealed part of why they just don't value art in general. They claimed he only got big because of his humor. Did he honestly think the humor just randomly appeared, and wasn't part of the art?

 

[Tall Dwarf]

Homie, you're just getting needled for having silly extreme views, that's all.

Of course YouTube is useful. I would be happy to link a channel with some excellent tutorials for both Procreate and Fresco for anyone with an iPad that's interesting.

Here, I'll just do it, I enjoy his content a lot: https://www.youtube.com/@chris-piascik

His style is just one way to draw, but the actual use of tools is really applicable to anyone.

What's ridiculous, and funny, is this assertion that nobody can learn to draw with a pencil and piece of paper without YouTube. I understand you're not an artist, and that's fine. Nobody actually cares if you can draw or not. But confidently asserting something you don't actually know the first thing about is how people stop taking anything you say seriously.

Dial it back, that's all.

Yeah, definitely not a "homie" of yours. You lie way too much. You skin is too thin - you disabled my voting for downvoting your nonsense. And you are using fallacies way too much.

So, you "needle" me for this comment:

Good luck learning with just a pencil and paper. You would need at least YouTube videos, which means a computer with an internet connection.

Which was a response to:

Which is "more accessible" (your words)?
1) A pencil and paper
2) A computer powerful enough to run a GenAI model
3) A computer with an internet connection to 2)

Yes, in this context YouTube is the cheapest and most available option to accelerate learning, it makes it much more accessible, which is exactly what we were discussing. Anyone who learns "pencil and paper" art without YouTube wastes their free time. Which makes it less accessible. Got it or should I explain more?

It's not impossible to avoid YouTube, it's just plain dumb.

There is nothing to "needle" me about, this is just common sense. Your sneer is pointless and dumb.

But confidently asserting something you don't actually know the first thing about is how people stop taking anything you say seriously.

ROFLMAO you are trying to use a single quote taken out of context to discredit me? And by "people" you mean you? Appeal to authority on top of quoting out of context and ad hominem. Hat trick of fallacies. Nicely done. Extra pathetic. That's why I don't like you.

If you disagreed with the statement you could just say it's factually wrong and I would agree with that, out of context of accessibility discussion, it is not true. See, I did it right now!

But no, you need something for "people to stop taking anything I say seriously". Weak, dumb, pathetic.

Also, about "confidently asserting something you don't actually know the first thing about" - you did exactly that about AI art many times. Basically, your entire attack on AI art is based in ignorance. Fear, greed and entitlement too, but ignorance is the basis of most of your "arguments".

I suppose "people should stop taking anything you say seriously" then.

Dial it back, that's all.

Dial back you lies, dumb sneer, fallacies and abuse of administrative position, then we will talk. Maybe.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

Buddy, I harbour no illusion that you share my opinion. Was I not clear on that? Maybe I do need to learn to communicate. I thought I was pretty clearly tweaking your arbitrary and absurd goalposts, that people need to spend thousands of hours to git gud enough to create something you deem to be "half decent." The absolute cheek. The gatekeeping! The person who doesn't even understand the intent of Fountain and how it's almost wholly anathema to AI generated images^※!

I mean, I guess you could have surprised me and said you thought Munroe made "half decent" art, but I expected you to say that the very successful (for myriad definitions of the word) web comic was not, in fact, "half decent" art. And everyone else would get a little chuckle. And here we are.

Anyway, you certainly imply in this very reply I've quoted that Munroe doesn't make "half decent" art because it is visually simple. You have repeatedly implied in this thread that simple works, or works that you find basic or vulgar, aren't art or are "less" art than more complex AI images. The inference I draw from that is that you require visual complexity—and only visual complexity—as the definition of art.

If that's not your intent then… learn to communicate, I guess?

View attachment 88645
Ceci n'est pas la Trahison des images.​

^※ I say almost because I could also argue an interpretation of Fountain that favours AI generated imagery, but I don't think that most people who present AI imagery do it with an intent compatible with that interpretation.

Let me quote you some more:

Here's what I was hoping you'd infer from engaging with the art, and basically what I was going to ask before I replaced my original response with just the xkcd panel: Do you think Randall Munroe makes half decent art? I would argue that he does, despite him largely relying on stick figures.

So, you implied that "Randall Munroe makes half decent art" is self evident. You replaced the question with the picture with a completely different question expecting me to guess your intention.

It doesn't get much dumber than that. Yes, you do need to learn to communicate.

The person who doesn't even understand the intent of Fountain and how it's almost wholly anathema to AI generated images^※!

Yes, this weird urinals cult of yours is quite bizzare. There is also banana taped to a wall, a messed up bed, an invisible sculpture. A lot of nonsense I have no any duty to pander to. Surprise, surprise! And being snobbish about me "not understanding" it is hilarious and pathetic.

I thought I was pretty clearly tweaking your arbitrary and absurd goalposts, that people need to spend thousands of hours to git gud enough to create something you deem to be "half decent."

They do. This skill is hard to obtain and it takes a lot of time. And you "thought" wrong, it was very dumb of you to think that. Also, no goalpost of any kind - "half decent" requirement was there from the very beginning. You just chosen to ignore it. Swing and miss.

I expected you to say that the very successful (for myriad definitions of the word) web comic was not, in fact, "half decent" art. And everyone else would get a little chuckle.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that artistic values of this comic has nothing to do with its success. Even though I already mentioned that. By any metric this is not a "half decent" art, it's child's scribbles.

Anyway, you certainly imply in this very reply I've quoted that Munroe doesn't make "half decent" art because it is visually simple. You have repeatedly implied in this thread that simple works, or works that you find basic or vulgar, aren't art or are "less" art than more complex AI images. The inference I draw from that is that you require visual complexity—and only visual complexity—as the definition of art.

So, you made a wrong inference. Your assumption made an ass from you again. There is a pattern. You should stop.

There are many reasons for considering an art piece good or bad. You trying to deciphering my criteria based on a few obviously bad pictures I didn't like is fool's errand. It is very fitting that you tried. Well, you failed.

If that's not your intent then… learn to communicate, I guess?

Your absence of basic logic and reason is not my problem. No amount of communication from my side can fix that.

Easier on the assumptions, tiger. They make an ass of you again and again.

 

[bjn]

so even tho I work in IT(cybersecurity) I'm not very big on tech, ex. we ONLY have 1 TV in the house, and kiddos never had a tablet until school gave em iPads. So they are very old school by most standards, aka spend 99.999% of time outside playing, and or good ol fashioned pen and paper, so I def hear you on the physical media, and thats actually how we are discovering her affinity for the arts!!

but the world is not standing still so even tho I don't watch TV or am not on tech outside of work, I should still push it on the kiddos so they aren't left behind..

Good stuff and reading about your daughter has me excited to get mines going on this journey, even if its jus a hobby : ] appreciate you sharing about your father as well!

Apologies, she has both Photoshop and Procreate on her iPad and mostly uses Procreate to draw.

 

[kalzekdor]

If art were an incredibly expensive thing to produce, I might see your point, but there are plenty of artists who don't ask that much for commissions. And we're talking about visual arts here, there aren't that many use cases where you need only the function of visual depiction that AI can accomplish.* Outside of needing character/creature portraits for running and making games as a hobbyist, outside of making throwaway memes with AI, I can't think of any use cases where this really opens doors.

* I can think of a lot of use cases where you need a generic visual depiction of something and not a full blown piece of art, but I haven't seen any generative AI that specialize in Icons, HUD elements, or other applications where clean images in a uniform style are required.

Mm, that does seem like a useful use case! Another one I've been wondering about is taking two drawn images and having generative AI fill in a smooth animation between them. Animation is not cheap, and it seems like a really useful application for this technology, automating the rote creation of the transitional frames, reducing the amount of labor required for smooth animations.

 

[Cthel]

Mm, that does seem like a useful use case! Another one I've been wondering about is taking two drawn images and having generative AI fill in a smooth animation between them. Animation is not cheap, and it seems like a really useful application for this technology, automating the rote creation of the transitional frames, reducing the amount of labor required for smooth animations.

Automated tweening is already a thing (it's one of the big advantages of switching 2D animation workflows to digital), and has been for nearly 30 years at this point.

There's even a FOSS software package available, in addition to multiple paid software packages.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

15 minutes of AI-free Procreate silliness.

View attachment 88617

Have a nice weekend, folks

Very nice. I like that the shark has something to do.

FLUX.1 dev quantized to 8 bit with minor manual corrections. It took more than 15 minutes but it was fun.

 

[bjn]

Nice bit of talentlessness.

 

[42Kodiak42]

Mm, that does seem like a useful use case! Another one I've been wondering about is taking two drawn images and having generative AI fill in a smooth animation between them. Animation is not cheap, and it seems like a really useful application for this technology, automating the rote creation of the transitional frames, reducing the amount of labor required for smooth animations.

From what I've seen of the tech so far, transition frames are going to be one of the hardest things for an AI to do, primarily because they absolutely require the artist to understand the mechanics of what they're trying to depict and how the human brain interprets the end result and often employ abstract techniques (squash and smear... think the whole 'Didney Whorl~' memes) to accomplish their tasks. To an artist, it's drudgework because it's so reliant on skills that came with your continued existence and survival in the physical world. For an AI that's not trained on a lifetime of physical context, that doesn't have the neural shortcuts in a human mind that these techniques exploit, it's going to be difficult.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

Nice bit of talentlessness.

Toothless and lame. You should ask AI to help you with criticism.

 

[Marcus Andreus]

Easier on the assumptions, tiger. They make an ass of you again and again.

You've shown us examples of images you think are "bad," and images you think are "good."

Several people, myself included, sussed common factors in your posts: an affinity for visual complexity, and a total disdain for anything except visual complexity. Is it possible you don't understand what you think makes good art? It would certainly track with your lack of engagement.

Even these Moon Shark pictures. Yours is more complex, but makes less sense. In the original the shark is jumping out of a crater where it was hidden, surprising the astronaut. It's fun little story! In yours, the shark is just floating there in the open, at an off angle to the astronaut. Why is the shark just floating there? Where did it come from? Why didn't the astronaut notice it? Why is their left hand—which is seemingly closer to our POV—noticeably smaller? It's tedious. A tremendous example of an AI generated image (derogatory).

Back to Fountain (yes, again). I don't think that's it is a very interesting piece, physically. Moreover, it is intentionally physically uninteresting. The fact that it is based off a boring, mass-produced item is intrinsic to the question it asks. It is a piece about the very nature of art, about commodification (cough). It is a piece that invites you to think about what we've been talking about in this thread.

But all you see is a urinal.

That's certainly a way to operate, but it's kind of sad. Hollow.

 

[Dail]

You're cheating your clients by feeding them AI generated slop. You should be ashamed of yourself.

In this instance the 'client' is myself, illustration is something I do for fun. I think you don't actually grasp how interesting creating a LoRA for a model based off your own work and then using that to 'draw' in your own style really is.