Is GenAI a Threat to Creativity? Why Some Leaders Hate the Trend

“I really f**king hate generative AI.” As far as statements go, this is as straightforward as they come.

While the entire business world scrambles after the golden goose that is GenAI, the CEO of the iPad-centric illustration app Procreate, James Cuda, has taken a radical, almost defiant, stance against it. In our fast-paced tech world where executives have been placing this new innovation on a grand pedestal, this declaration of hatred from Cuda has been shocking—yet also rather refreshing.

In a recent video posted on X (formerly Twitter), Cuda came out firing. The video started off with Cuda saying, “You’ve been asking us about AI. I usually don’t like getting in front of the camera. I prefer that our products speak for themselves.” Then he quickly followed this up with what’s now become a viral statement: “I really f**king hate generative AI. I don’t like what’s happening in the industry, and I don’t like what it’s doing to artists.” He went on to state that Procreate will not be introducing any GenAI into their products—a bold claim in our now largely AI-driven world.

What made Cuda’s comments against the AI-fication of art truly interesting—and even relatable—was that he based it on one fundamental idea: the irreplaceable value of human creativity. In Cuda’s own words, “Our products are always designed and developed with the idea that a human will be creating something.” But as the world gets swept away by the infinite potential of GenAI, with competitors such as Adobe leveraging it to the fullest, is this utter rejection of the solution a smart corporate move or eventual business suicide?

Here, we take a look at what tech leaders, artists, and other creative workers have to say about the adoption of GenAI and whether or not it has a place in sectors that thrive on human creativity.

“Creativity Is Made, Not Generated”: Is the GenAI Hate Warranted?

On their official website, Procreate doubled down on their disapproval for GenAI, saying, “Generative AI is ripping the humanity out of things. Built on a foundation of theft, the technology is steering us toward a barren future. We think machine learning is a compelling technology with a lot of merit, but the path generative AI is on is wrong for us.” This decision raised quite a few eyebrows across the world of digital art and, for the most part, also received quite a bit of praise.

On Procreate’s original video posted on X, thousands of artists praised Cuda’s comments against GenAI’s rise in the digital art space. Artist and author Kyle T Webster (@kyletwebster) commented, “💯, amigos! ❤️🙏 I know I am in the right place. You rock.” Similarly, artist and streamer Quartsyween (@cosmicquarts) poured her heart out and wrote, “I’ve truly never been more proud to utilize your products.😭 Still can’t believe the $10 I spent in 2018 opened an entire world of creativity, growth, personal exploration, and business potential for me all these years later… TY for changing the industry for the better!! 🌟” These were just a couple of the many positive remarks that flooded into the post’s comment section, making it abundantly clear that the creative class believes that GenAI doesn’t have a positive impact in their field.

But the question here is: is this hate actually justified? For thousands of artists and creative workers who value their uniqueness and imperfections, the answer is yes! What many artists believe a prominent issue of GenAI to be is that the art it produces is overwhelmingly soulless, nothing more than a loose imitation of true, meaningful art. Though GenAI’s algorithm-driven pieces can turn out to be visually impressive, these easily produced images feel more like a mass-produced knock-off and not a carefully created and original art piece.

However, many artists believe that the even more pressing concern behind the use of GenAI in the world of digital art is the technology’s heavy reliance on human-created artwork. The largest AI models use billions of scraped images as training data, which often also include copyrighted work from artists across the globe, a blatant act of intellectual property theft. Such cases have been prominent in recent years, with even major companies like Adobe facing stern backlash over the new terms of service regarding their Firefly AI solution. And at the end of the day, simply having to compete for work against soulless machines that derive their capabilities by studying the art meticulously crafted by humans can easily feel like a devaluation of their own talent and craft.

Voices Across Industries: What Tech Leaders Think About GenAI

Despite the evident support from artists across the globe, many business leaders may view Cuda’s stance against GenAI to be too extreme and even somewhat against the natural course of progress. The majority of tech leaders around the world view GenAI as a tool to be harnessed, not an unethical technology that should be ignored.

Speaking on this new tech, Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX and Tesla, said, “Generative AI is the most powerful tool for creativity that has ever been created. It has the potential to unleash a new era of human innovation.” Harboring a similar belief, Mark Zuckerberg came out and said, “Generative AI is the key to solving some of the world’s biggest problems, such as climate change, poverty, and disease. It has the potential to make the world a better place for everyone.” Though not specifically addressing the creative fields such as digital art, designing, or writing, these statements make it abundantly clear that the biggest names in tech and innovation are backing GenAI to the fullest.   

However, if we stop looking at GenAI from a bird’s-eye view and analyze how it’s impacting the lives of industry professionals, we can find its fair share of skepticism. Christopher Lind, Executive Advisor, Business & Product Transformation, discussed the idea that GenAI is supporting lazier behavior from working professionals, even for tasks such as creating cover letters and resumes. In a video he shared on LinkedIn, he said, “It’s not generative AI that is causing this. Why I do think this is worth drawing attention to is that I do think generative AI is making it easier for this kind of lazy behavior.” On an even hotter take, Sachin Kamdar, Chief Executive Officer at Elvex, shared an article on the overall “sh*tification” of AI. Explaining how, according to his experience, models start out amazing but then degrade really fast. He even went on to suggest that generative AI is, at least currently, a little overhyped, given the fact it isn’t as easy to use as it should be.  

The Unavoidable Competitive Disadvantages

Despite hearing both sides of GenAI’s story through the quotes and experiences of leaders on the frontlines of innovation, one thing remains certain: the numbers suggest that adopting GenAI does bring substantial growth and benefits. Hence, Procreate’s staunch stance against GenAI, though bold and admired by artists, presents business risks. GenAI is developing at an astounding pace, and if companies fail to embrace its potential, they are often left behind.

A prominent example of a creative software company finding profit through its GenAI solutions is Adobe. Despite a shaky start to the year, Adobe managed to ride the GenAI wave to achieve record revenue. For the quarter ended on May 31st, Adobe reported revenue grew 10% YoY to $5.31 billion, surpassing LSEG’s estimate of $5.29 billion. Speaking on this substantial growth, Chief Executive Shantanu Narayen said, “Our highly differentiated approach to AI and innovative product delivery are attracting an expanding universe of customers and providing more value to existing users.”

Given Procreate’s relatively smaller company size and an evident lack of obsession with maximizing profits, the company hasn’t really suffered with the lack of AI-powered solutions in its product. Moreover, this move could even be perceived as an advantage, creating an even more loyal fanbase. However, if other similar applications somehow manage to use GenAI as an advantage, making the process of creating meaningful art hassle-free and more engaging, then Procreate could be left between a rock and a hard place.     

Human Creativity Meets AI Advancements: Can There Be a Balance?

While Cuda’s perspective on GenAI resonates with many creatives, some wonder whether human creativity and AI advancements could work together to create new possibilities. And if we truly analyze Procreate’s interactions, the answer may already be present. On Procreate’s original post on GenAI, X user AdamB (@ItsAdamBurman) asked, “But what about things like background removal using AI? Would that be included?” And replying to this question, Procreate said, “We understand that some AI tools may help with productivity. We don’t have any problems with these as long as they’re doing the boring or dangerous work and the data is ethically sourced. We’ll only be interested in exploring AI tools to create even better tools for artists.”

This perfectly phrased response delivers a succinct answer to the question of whether or not there can be a balance between human creativity and GenAI. Adopting GenAI as a supportive tool rather than a dominant force can help preserve the human creativity that artists value above all else while also ensuring they receive a boost in productivity. James Cuda’s bold stance against the blatant use of AI to generate art doesn’t just underscore his love for human creativity, but it also serves as a wakeup call for the industry to analyze the true role of AI. And if the day ever comes that Procreate finds an innovative way to embrace GenAI, offering artists the ability to express themselves even more freely without compromising any aspect of human creativity, it would surely be an incredible day for the entirety of the digital art community.