Procreate's anti-AI pledge attracts praise from digital creatives

Product decision & user preferences

• Many argue that if a user base clearly dislikes a feature (like gen AI), a company shouldn’t add it, or should isolate it as an optional plugin/app.
• Procreate’s pledge is seen by some as smart differentiation in a market where most paint tools are adding AI; others say AI wouldn’t help their app much anyway.
• Some see this as primarily a business move targeting an anti-AI niche; others think a non-public company can credibly act from principle, not just profit.

Feasibility on Apple platforms

• Disagreement over whether Procreate “could” practically add AI on iOS.
• One side: iOS allows gen-AI apps, and online inference (like ChatGPT) is clearly permitted.
• Other side: current iOS hardware is slow and power-hungry for local image generation, and heavy cloud-based generation might run afoul of App Store performance guidelines.
• Overall: capability is technically possible; user experience and Apple’s enforcement are debated.

What counts as AI and where to draw the line

• Several note the fuzzy boundary: algorithms vs “AI” vs gen AI.
• Some propose: anything trained on data is AI; classical filters/anti-aliasing are not.
• Others distinguish “machine learning/deep learning used internally” from “gen AI trained on other people’s creative work.”

Ethics, copyright, and “theft” debate

• Strong split:
  • One side calls training on unlicensed artworks immoral “stealing” or “laundering,” especially for commercial models built on creators’ work without consent or compensation.
  • The other side rejects the “theft” framing, calling training “analysis,” likening current arguments to past industry backlash against new tech, and invoking copyright’s role in promoting “useful arts.”
• Disputes arise over whether models merely compress patterns vs implicitly store copyrighted works, and whether intent (e.g., profit from others’ labor) is morally decisive.
• There is concern that changing IP law to treat such analysis as infringement could backfire on non-corporate creators as well.

Artists’ actual use of AI

• Reports from some photographers, illustrators, and communities: strong hostility to gen AI; “AI-free” branding; fear of job loss and a “race to the bottom” with low-effort AI output marketed as bespoke design.
• Counter-anecdotes: many working designers, illustrators, and photographers quietly use AI (local models, Photoshop features, diffusion) for speedups like object removal, inpainting, background generation, logo ideation.
• Some label anti-AI artists as Luddites or “uncreative,” arguing AI is just another tool like photography or autotune; others insist generative tools enable deception and “dishonest” work.

Marketing, moral posturing, and public reaction

• Some dislike what they see as moral grandstanding by tools vendors rather than straightforward product reasoning.
• Others counter that moral stances have always influenced software (e.g., open source) and are legitimate.
• Debate over media framing: claims of “widespread praise” for Procreate’s pledge are questioned as based on a few tweets; others point to high engagement metrics and visible backlash against gen AI in certain creative circles.

Societal and long-term implications

• Pro-AI view: gen AI will let many more people realize artistic visions without years of training, bringing large net cultural benefit; objectors are motivated by economic fear or loss of status.
• Anti-/skeptical view: current “AI slop” degrading visual culture, encouraging laziness, and devaluing skilled labor; tools lack control/consistency for higher-end work and may entrench shallow engagement with art.
• Some expect an arc similar to synthesizers in music: early backlash followed by eventual ubiquity; others argue AI art’s unpopularity stems from deeper ethical and creative concerns, not just immature quality.