this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
13 points (100.0% liked)

Futurology

1651 readers
14 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commandar@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Pretty astoundingly clueless take from the author of the article:

Procreate’s statements may align it with some gen-AI critical artists, but it is in my view, a little odd and inconsistent of a stand to take for a brand that readily embraced other disruptive tech — such as touchscreens and styluses and pixels — that also competes with more traditional art techniques (e.g. painting or drawing on paper).

In addition, the idea that by rejecting gen AI, Procreate is supporting “human creativity” is a little bit of a straw man argument to me, since humans also still need to enter the prompts and adjust them — sometimes many times — to create images with gen AI applications as well. Even in the case of gen AI software, humans are still driving it.

[–] PoopingCough@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oof. I like how they always seem to ignore the insane amount of human created art that goes in to creating these models that is uncredited and uncompensated.

[–] chetradley@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah but what about the time it takes to write "big titty anime girl, digital art" into the prompt field? That's a lot of creative work apparently!