This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
They frame this article in such a weird way. Like replacing the models and their jobs was justified because they had egos etc...
I can see similar framing used to replace other workers because they want to be paid fairly or do something drastic like take bathroom breaks... :D
I mean...the moment any large corporation figures out a way to replace human workers that need things like bathroom breaks (and basic human rights, and paychecks) and do the same work with robots and AI... literally the next moment, they'll have the AI start generating layoff notices.
It's just less flashy when it happens that way because there's no need for that AI to look like a beautiful young person.
But.. why would you not replace workers with robots when you can? Serious question.
The alternative is paying people to do an unneeded job, and that's not sustainable. How do we intend to pay a person who contributes nothing to society?
I feel there are going to be a shitload of questions like this in the coming decade. We've navigated such upheavals before, such as during the Industrial Revolution and the beginning of the Information Age. But now? Seems quite different.
Had this talk with a more conservative acquaintance about minimum wage:
"We gotta pay these people a living wage. What about all the dumbasses out there that can't handle more than a convenience store job?"
"Not my problem."
"But those people are OUR problem. Want to give them more welfare? Want them to be homeless with all the problems that brings?"
Anyway, some fool will come along shortly and scream, "UBI!". If you get a simple answer to a complex question, the answering party is simple.
How do we intend to pay a person who contributes nothing to society?
Why must we value how a person "contributes to society" via their output for capitalism?
Is studying philosophy useless? Is making art? Is reaping the benefits of a society built upon tens of thousands of years of human innovation to just sit back and relax a bit?
Humanity worked hard to get to a point where this is even a question. If you listen to the capitalists saying "If you're not working you're worthless" then you've been tricked. Tens of thousands of years of human innovation and suffering to advance society to a point where we don't all have to work, but the rich want you to think that's a bad thing. It is not natural that the benefits of all of that effort and suffering should all collect in the hands of a few at the top while everyone else suffers.
The "simple answer" is UBI because there literally is no alternative short of outright killing people that don't work to maintain automation. You and everyone else deserves a cut of that pie, we and all of our ancestors put blood, sweat, and tears into it. Let the people relax and enjoy the fruits of that society.
Anyway, some fool will come along shortly and scream, “UBI!”.
It sounds like you have other suggestions? Or at least objections to this one?
It's just so hard to see where we transition from here.
We went from a resource economy to a manufacturing economy to a service economy... And now many services are being automated. So what's next?
I'm in favor of the automation but recognize it's going to cause pain in the near future.
I've seen people tout a 'creative based economy', but to be honest LLMs and GANs seen poised to grab that sector before anyone in service can transition to it.
You'd hope all of this would mean an easier life, but so long as capitalism is the name of the game there is zero incentive to spread the benefits among all.
They don't need a justification. It is just capitalism. The second it becomes profitable to develop and implement an AI to replace a human, it will be done. And half the country/world will be rooting for them saying "yeah, go capitalism!"
I think that with these new kinds of stories, this sort of thing is super obvious because we haven't gotten used to it and because they haven't developed the more subtle vocabulary like officer involved shooting or how israelis are killed but Palestinians just die or how it's always the strikers threatening the economy and never the bosses or unfair working conditions.
I don't think anyone does this on purpose, mind you, but it's the system evolving to suit it's needs, as Chomsky pointed out.
From all the jobs that will disappear, the jobs of models replaced by AI is probably the ones I care the least.
Two points:
It's not like ads use real people anymore. Everything in advertisement has been highly Photoshoped for ages. I don't understand your point about representation though. It will be easier to create diverse models in all shapes and sizes.
This seems deeply, disturbingly fucked up. "Fuck working with real people, who have their own goals and desires out of a career, we're just gonna use an AI since no one can tell the difference." It's fucked up on multiple levels, not least since the fashion industry was already full of broken people before AI hit the scene.
was already full of broken people before AI hit the scene.
so why not take the people out of the equation?
Gosh, those union workers are just so toxic. Let’s replace them with obedient artificial intelligence.
Capitalists gonna capitalist.
And then they wonder why their sales are tanking, when it turns out AI's can't buy their products and everyone else is too poor to even consider it.
The unrealistic beauty standards are already ridiculous. Several years ago there was a vid showing how they changed a model's photo session. Even the model wasn't as perfect as her pictures, it was staggering.
Being able to do it in video, well, that's old hat now too. Just look at movies.
It'll just be faster with less manual effort with AI, with the same unrealistic results.
What's more concerning to me is how much easier it'll be for media to ~~lie~~, er, misrepresent situations visually.
Probably referring to this one: https://youtu.be/iYhCn0jf46U
Inb4 piped bot!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/iYhCn0jf46U
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
There may be a moment coming not too far off where beauty is just not a human thing anymore. Which may be catastrophic (like people can’t have sex with each other anymore) or oddly liberating.
Here's a somewhat related article that brings up how this is already happening without AI in the movie industry: Everyone is beautiful and no one is horny
Thanks! I’d read it already. Good one too. Though I wasn’t consciously referencing it in my mind, it no doubt planted the seed for my thought.
The basis of my thought was my own reflection on whenever I’ve seen AI images that are intended to be beautiful and attractive. While they are often somewhat uncanny and even unnatural, in my experience they are definitely hitting the right “buttons”, like an artificial sweetener. But, IME, unlike artificial sweeteners, can effectively go for being more “sweet” than anything natural ever could.
I don’t think I like it, but the capacity is definitely there and I can’t see why people won’t eventually get used to being aroused by some ridiculously proportioned and shiny but undeniably “sexy” AI character/imagery and find increasingly little of interest in our dull, flabby, hairy and flat selves.
For the porn and modeling industries, maybe there’ll be a liberating effect of freeing women from the industry. Maybe sexual relationships will feel free to emphasise the physical and psychological intimacy rather than the visual attractiveness.
In the end though, beauty standards will probably just become more problematic. Weird sci-fi shot is probably in store.
The nice thing about AI is that I can do the same thing. Anyone can do this.
Instagram had slowly morphed from a website to share artsy filtered cell photos to an advertisement platform, where people are turning themselves into characters living the perfectly imperfect life on social media, in an attempt to turn themselves into living advertisements, to buy and sell products, Every photo (especially the natural looking ones) is carefully shot, curated and edited by a team to imitate authenticity, no different than shooting a movie or a TV show.
So then, what happens if that role of a living advertisment can automated by machines, equally as heartless and unrealistic as these performance of perfect daily lives on Instagram? Why go through the efforts, the hours and manpower, to conduct the photoshoots and Photoshops for that one perfectly imperfect targeted post, when anyone with a modern GPU can effortlessly make thousands of machine generated pictures with way less work in the same timeframe?
Why should the role of "social media influencer" even exist then?
I've been unhappy about the state of social media for a long time now. But as it appears, the role of the social media influencer, as the lowest common denominator of photography, will be the first to be rendered redundant by AI automation, which brings me hope that in time, social media can be brought back to what originally was: a place for people to talk to people.
I have never been on Instagram, only joined last year because apparently doing business over it's messenger is now a norm. Subscribed to a few of my friends and was terrified. I know them, I know they're not living like that, but the amount of effort they put into trying to appear more successful than they actually are is astounding. It's not just showing the good things and hiding the bad ones like people on e.g. facebook do, but spending hours every day into faking it and outdoing each other. Two have actual depression and should seek help ASAP, but on Instagram they are trying to twist it in some kind of brag/motivation/skit to show how better they are than others. This is absolutely unhealthy, and I am now advising everyone to get off it and stay away for the sake of their own mental health.
Thanks Margot, for taking some time out of your busy schedule to post this fabulously intricate meta-contribution on bots, identity, and social media! Its much appreciated.
If they only appreciate me enough to hand me my Oscar this year...
Body images that are so unobtainable that we literally made them up.
I feel like considering it AI is disingenuous, though. It's a team of graphic artists, no? Like you have to digitally render every piece of clothing and assemble ensembles you want to sell.
Body images that are so unobtainable that we literally made them up.
Don't worry, we already have plenty of beauty filters that can run in real time and make everybody pretty on the Internet.
Seriously, I think people still vastly underestimate how much of everything you see today is already fake. "AI is bad"-news kind of hides the fact that none of this was real to begin with.
Yeah this title is dumb as hell. Some models and influencers are difficult to work with, and some are easy. The ones that are shitty get less work, naturally. It's just like any other industry. My partner works with them all the time.
This company made an AI model because they're fucking cheap.
Remember Hatsune Miku?
Anybody that pays for a cam-girl is an idiot and I feel slightly bad for them. Anybody that pays for an AI rendering of a cam-girl is a fucking moron and that’s it
We had all this back in the 1970s with "Robots and Computers will take all our jobs" scaremongering.
As factories & production lines started to use robots and CNC machines, CAD and digital imaging appeared, accounting software etc etc we were all going to lose our jobs and live a life of unemployed leisure.
Never happened.
I'm sure AI will play an important role in the future but like so many new fads it will settle into its niche and we will all be okay.
To create a specific model and then have the same exact model in different clothing and poses is not something that a manager just did with an off-the-shelf pre-trained stable diffusion solution. They might not have given a model a gig, but they hired at least one full-time AI specialist.
Looks like a typical Stable Diffusion model. All of them have the same problem - lighting. It's always with that bad front facing "flash" effect.
I'm genuinely sceptical. How do they ensure the same looking person is generated each time? From any perspective? You can create fake images of a specific person precisely because you have a dataset of ground truth images.
If it is true... Then yeah. Modelling is now a dead job. And weirdly we're back to pre-photo advertising when everything was just drawn.
How do they ensure the same looking person is generated each time?
You can generate consistent faces simply by using random non-existent names. Which in turn you can use to train a custom LORA with Dreambooth (needs about 20 images) or use ROOP (a single one can be enough). And of course you can just mix and match it as you please, mix multiple real faces together into a new one, use dedicated face generators like https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ and so on.
This barely even takes effort anymore, e.g. quick ROOP FaceSwap with the photo from the article, which doesn't look quite the same due to only a single input image, gets better with more, but that's just shows how easy it is to generate a new face, which will than be consistent with itself.
The hard part is getting an interesting pose, expression and haircut into this, as well as sponsored products and stuff. Generating realistic images with AI is pretty easy, but getting variation into them so they don't end up all looking the same can get tricky.
Edit: Five more minutes of effort and it starts to look a little closer.
I'm guessing they just generate a bunch of pictures, pick the closest and fix the rest in photoshop.
Not like real models aren't already often photoshopped to (near) unrecognizability.
I'm give with cgi models. But you have to tell people it's s fictional model
Hasn't everything been fictional since the invention of Photoshop some decades ago? And even before that people have been faking photos by analog means. Photos, especially in the context of advertisement, have never been non-fictional.
