3 ms·

You're using a different definition of AI than Procreate is. You can tell because no one has ever said generative fill was "founded on theft" (a statement you d

You're using a different definition of AI than Procreate is. You can tell because no one has ever said generative fill was "founded on theft" (a statement you don't have to agree with to acknowledge the point). So you and Procreate are talking across purposes.

tensor 2y ago
Generative AI has a very specific meaning, it's not something that's "up for debate." That the general public has taken a trade term and abused it is not a reason to abandon the actual meaning among practitioners. Generative AI is AI that can generate examples from learned models. This is opposed to discriminating AI which given an answer can tell you if it's correct. This actually matters because in fact there are many types of gen AI, the vast majority not being image nor large language models. "Founded on theft" is nonsensical moralizing that doesn't help anyone with anything, and definitely doesn't help define any sort of sensible AI regulation.
- maxbond 2y ago
  Sometimes people use terms in a way we don't agree with, but it doesn't give us license to misinterpret their meaning in doing so. (Please note I made no claim here about whether or not AI is "founded on theft" and only that Procreate used that turn of phrase.)
  - tensor 2y ago
    If they have license to misrepresent and abuse a term, users of that term absolutely have license to correct them. Being ignorant does not somehow put you above criticism or correction.
    - maxbond 2y ago
      I'm not saying there's no license to correct them, but that the substance of a disagreement is unlikely to be about definitions (and wasn't in this case). I think arguing about what terms mean is largely a distraction. All words are made up, the right definition is the one that serves the discussion you're having at any given moment. Letting your interlocutor pick their own terms is a free way to extend charity and aid mutual understanding. If you're talking to someone, that means meeting in the middle because it goes both ways. If you're reading or discussing a document and the author isn't around, that means adopting the author's terminology, because there isn't really an alternative.
danpalmer 2y ago
That may be it, but I'd be interested in exactly what definition of "generative AI" Procreate would commit to. If the definition is anything that generates new art automatically, then features like generative fill would be included. If it's only AI that was "founded on theft", then they have a lot more scope for future features but have perhaps lost control of the narrative and might have users rebelling if they add AI features, after all there are multiple ways in which these features can be problematic, not just the use of training data.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

tensor 2y ago

Generative AI has a very specific meaning, it's not something that's "up for debate." That the general public has taken a trade term and abused it is not a reason to abandon the actual meaning among practitioners. Generative AI is AI that can generate examples from learned models. This is opposed to discriminating AI which given an answer can tell you if it's correct. This actually matters because in fact there are many types of gen AI, the vast majority not being image nor large language models. "Founded on theft" is nonsensical moralizing that doesn't help anyone with anything, and definitely doesn't help define any sort of sensible AI regulation.

maxbond 2y ago
Sometimes people use terms in a way we don't agree with, but it doesn't give us license to misinterpret their meaning in doing so. (Please note I made no claim here about whether or not AI is "founded on theft" and only that Procreate used that turn of phrase.)
- tensor 2y ago
  If they have license to misrepresent and abuse a term, users of that term absolutely have license to correct them. Being ignorant does not somehow put you above criticism or correction.
  - maxbond 2y ago
    I'm not saying there's no license to correct them, but that the substance of a disagreement is unlikely to be about definitions (and wasn't in this case). I think arguing about what terms mean is largely a distraction. All words are made up, the right definition is the one that serves the discussion you're having at any given moment. Letting your interlocutor pick their own terms is a free way to extend charity and aid mutual understanding. If you're talking to someone, that means meeting in the middle because it goes both ways. If you're reading or discussing a document and the author isn't around, that means adopting the author's terminology, because there isn't really an alternative.

danpalmer 2y ago

That may be it, but I'd be interested in exactly what definition of "generative AI" Procreate would commit to. If the definition is anything that generates new art automatically, then features like generative fill would be included. If it's only AI that was "founded on theft", then they have a lot more scope for future features but have perhaps lost control of the narrative and might have users rebelling if they add AI features, after all there are multiple ways in which these features can be problematic, not just the use of training data.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]