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.

  • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Honestly, I think that…

    • AI is going to revolutionize the game industry.

    • AI is going to kill the game industry as it currently exists.

    • Generative AI will lead to a lot of real-time effects and mechanics that are currently impossible, like endless quests that don’t feel hollow, realistic procedural generation that can convincingly create everything from random clutter to entire galaxies, true photorealistic graphics (look up gaussian splatting, it’s pretty cool), convincing real-time art filters (imagine a 3d game that looks like an animated Van Gogh painting), and so on.

    • Generative AI is going to result in a hell of a lot of layoffs and will likely ruin people’s lives.

    • Generative AI will eventually open the door to small groups of devs being able to compete with AAA releases on all metrics.

    • Generative AI will make studios with thousands of employees obsolete. This is a double-edged sword. Fewer employees means fewer ideas; but on the other side, you get a more accurate vision of what the director originally intended. Fewer employees also will also mean that you will likely have to be a genuinely creative person to get ahead, instead of someone who knows how to use Maya or Photoshop but is otherwise creatively bankrupt. Your contribution matters far more in a studio of <50 than it does in a studio of >5,000; as such, your creative skill will matter more.

    • A lot of people will have to be retrained because they will no longer be creative enough to make a living off of making games.

    Tbh, I think game development is one of the few places that generative AI will actually have a significant benefit; however I also think it will completely scramble the industry once it starts being widely adopted, and it’ll be a long time before the dust settles.

    • mke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ve no idea where you’re getting these predictions from. I think some of them are fundamentally flawed if not outright incorrect, and don’t reflect real life trends of generative AI development and applications.

      Gonna finish this comment in a few, please wait.

      • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think the big difference is that you seem to think that AI has peaked or is near its peak potential, while I think AI is still just getting started. Will generative AI ever progress beyond being a gimmick? I don’t know, but I suspect it will eventually.

        For example, indies do not have the budget to license expensive actors (e.g. Call of Duty, Cyberpunk 2077), brands (e.g. racing games), and so on. GenAI will not change this. Hell, GenAI will certainly not pay for global advertising.

        Admittedly I had not thought about the licensing and advertising aspect. That’s a bit of a blind spot for me because it’s not something I tend to care about. You’re correct there.

        If hiring them is no longer advantageous due to financial incentives to adopt AI, that’s not their fault for being insufficiently creative.

        I mean, maybe I could have phrased it better, but what else are you gonna do? They have to make a living somehow and if they can’t get hired in the game industry anymore, you gotta help them find somewhere else they can work.

        • mke@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I think the big difference is that you seem to think that AI has peaked or is near its peak potential, while I think AI is still just getting started.

          That’s a fair assessment. I’m still not sure if popular AI tech is on an exponential or a sigmoid curve, but I tend towards the latter. Note, however, that the industry at large is starting to believe it’s just not worth it. Even worse, the entities at the forefront of AI are unsustainable—they’re burning brightly right now, but the cash flow required to keep a reaction on this scale going is simply too large. If you’ve got time and are willing, please check the linked article by Ed (burst damage).

          I mean, maybe I could have phrased it better, but what else are you gonna do?

          My bad, I try to trim down the fat while editing, but I accidentally removed things I shouldn’t. As I said, it’s a nitpick, and I understand the importance of helping those who find themselves unhirable. Maybe it’s just me, but I thought it came across a little mean, even if it wasn’t your intent. I try to gently “poke” folks when I see stuff like this because artists get enough undeserved crap already.

          • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeaaahh… artists are really hard on themselves too. I make art myself, albeit not professionally; and I tend to be extremely hard on myself. I think maybe some of my comments about creativity are the result of my own self-negativity bleeding through.