3 ms·

Why should procreate be obliged to put generative models in? If they don’t want to, and their customers evidently agree, isn’t that sufficient? Your argument s

Why should procreate be obliged to put generative models in? If they don’t want to, and their customers evidently agree, isn’t that sufficient? Your argument seems to frame it as them “fundamentally needing” , or are in some way obliged to have that feature, when no such evidence exists for that.

danpalmer 2y ago
My point is not that they fundamentally need it, but more that they are over-reacting to the current hype cycle. 5 years ago no one considered Photoshop's generative fill to be problematic, and I would have expected it to be on the long term roadmap of any similar piece of software. It was a widely appreciated feature that no one really felt was changing art. Even if the whole current generative AI trend disappears entirely, that's still a feature customers wanted before, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't still want it. And that's assuming nothing comes of the current trend. I would imagine the opposite, that at least one or two limited use-cases will be found for things similar to generative fill, that in years time will be regarded as normal, not as problematic. Now if Procreate wants to position themselves as "low tech", that's a different thing, and they're free to do so, but looking at their product it doesn't seem that they're going for "low tech" in any other way.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  I think "no one" is overstating it, there are some who object to this sort of thing, the same way some people object to the use of autotune in popular music. But agreed, most people don't know/don't care, especially on the consumer side of the equation.
- 112233 2y ago
  If it helps think about AI as meat (or sugar). You put "only locally grown beef^W AI", or "does not contain any meat^W genAI" not because you are low tech, but because these are your customer preferences Nowhere do they talk of shunning all maachine learning. Current generative models are not exactly a technological product.
Ferret7446 2y ago
Their customers won't agree though, probably. When other artists are using useful features and being more productive with other tools, why would you stick with a tool that commits to not having those features? I'm not surprised if they say they don't like the tools, but when push comes to shove... Listen to what people do, not what they say.
unraveller 2y ago
The pushback is a rebuttal to the with us or against us moral nature of their pledge. The feature set was clearly contentious enough to publish a manifesto which expects a fracture of userbase. If they've misjudged the numbers I'm sure some minimum of missing creature comforts will creep back in. If only because Art can be more than what the commercial tool makers claim.

danpalmer 2y ago

My point is not that they fundamentally need it, but more that they are over-reacting to the current hype cycle. 5 years ago no one considered Photoshop's generative fill to be problematic, and I would have expected it to be on the long term roadmap of any similar piece of software. It was a widely appreciated feature that no one really felt was changing art. Even if the whole current generative AI trend disappears entirely, that's still a feature customers wanted before, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't still want it. And that's assuming nothing comes of the current trend. I would imagine the opposite, that at least one or two limited use-cases will be found for things similar to generative fill, that in years time will be regarded as normal, not as problematic. Now if Procreate wants to position themselves as "low tech", that's a different thing, and they're free to do so, but looking at their product it doesn't seem that they're going for "low tech" in any other way.

SoftTalker 2y ago
I think "no one" is overstating it, there are some who object to this sort of thing, the same way some people object to the use of autotune in popular music. But agreed, most people don't know/don't care, especially on the consumer side of the equation.
112233 2y ago
If it helps think about AI as meat (or sugar). You put "only locally grown beef^W AI", or "does not contain any meat^W genAI" not because you are low tech, but because these are your customer preferences Nowhere do they talk of shunning all maachine learning. Current generative models are not exactly a technological product.

Ferret7446 2y ago

Their customers won't agree though, probably. When other artists are using useful features and being more productive with other tools, why would you stick with a tool that commits to not having those features? I'm not surprised if they say they don't like the tools, but when push comes to shove... Listen to what people do, not what they say.

unraveller 2y ago

The pushback is a rebuttal to the with us or against us moral nature of their pledge. The feature set was clearly contentious enough to publish a manifesto which expects a fracture of userbase. If they've misjudged the numbers I'm sure some minimum of missing creature comforts will creep back in. If only because Art can be more than what the commercial tool makers claim.