"I Absolutely Dislike Generative AI" – Procreate CEO Vigorously Critiques Emerging Technology

Disclaimer: A media uses generative AI to create selected article imagery and other assets.

Designed by Australian firm Savage Interactive, the digital illustration app Procreate was launched in 2011, leveraging the rise of tablet computing, particularly the Apple iPad. However, CEO James Cuda is firmly against the latest technological trend: generative AI.

In a video posted on Procreate's official account on X (formerly Twitter), Cuda expressed his strong discontent: “I really fucking hate generative AI. I don’t like what’s happening in the industry and I don’t like what it’s doing to artists. We’re not going to be introducing any generative AI into our products.”

Cuda elaborated on his viewpoint, stating, “Our products are always designed and developed with the belief that a human will create something. We believe we’re on the right path in supporting human creativity.”

Procreate also launched a new webpage at Procreate.com/ai, emphasizing their commitment to avoiding generative AI. The site claims: “Generative AI is ripping the humanity out of things. Built on a foundation of theft, the technology is steering us toward a barren future. While we acknowledge the merits of machine learning, we believe that the current trajectory of generative AI is not right for us.”

Procreate asserts, “We’re here for the humans. We’re not chasing technology that poses a moral threat to our most precious asset: human creativity. In this technological rush, we might seem like an exception or at risk of being left behind, but we see this less-traveled path as a more exciting and rewarding one for our community.”

This stance marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate between advocates and critics of generative AI. Many artists on X and other platforms support Cuda's position, voicing concerns that generative AI tools—like those from Midjourney, OpenAI, and Stability AI—exploit artists by using their work without permission or compensation.

While Procreate’s statements resonate with some critics of generative AI, the brand's previous embrace of disruptive technologies—such as touchscreens and styluses—raises questions about the consistency of their stance. It’s also noteworthy that using generative AI still requires human intervention, as users must craft prompts and fine-tune outputs.

Procreate’s position seems to be a strategic marketing choice, capitalizing on the dissatisfaction artists express toward other creative tools like Canva and Adobe Creative Cloud, which have rapidly integrated generative AI features.

This controversy highlights the growing divides in the discourse surrounding generative AI—some see it as innovation, while others label it as ethically questionable, particularly concerning data sourcing practices.

A recent class-action copyright infringement lawsuit against Midjourney, Runway, and Stability AI has progressed to the discovery phase, with outcomes pending as to whether the mass scraping of artwork violates copyright laws. This scrutiny follows previous instances where tech giants, including Google, faced little backlash for similar data practices.

As the generative AI landscape continues to evolve, it's clear that many individuals remain skeptical, viewing the technology as exploitative and morally troubling, and they are vocal in their critiques.