Frankly, in the fashion industry, unless she is extraordinarily lucky age will take it far sooner. The buried lede here is that back in 2019 there was already a push to create CGI models (and give them backstories and personalities, which imo seems to echo the virtual idol subculture in Japan). The most interesting implication there is that it is worth the effort to give them a personality at all, which implies corporate curation of a parasocial entity with fans.
If you have an interest in the downstream side-effects of these kind of corporate parasocial relationships becoming normalized, I would highly recommend giving Satoshi Kon's Perfect Blue a watch[0].
What I've wanted, for some 30 years or so, is the ability to shop for clothes with myself as the model. That means the computer needs an accurate model of my body, and the clothes that are on offer. Like many women, my mom-bod is not well-represented by models -- there's been a recent move to include plus-size models, but there's a broad in-between that seems hopeless to cover.
I never tried one but since years I often met ads of apps promising exactly that, fitting based on body scans. Also a quick google search shows quite a few (first being the Walmart app) but of course it's difficult to assess what they deliver just based on their promises.
Well, maybe. Years ago, I did work for a talent (models, actors, etc) placement agency. The models would engage in work like photoshoots for brochures, web sites, stock photos, catalogs or appearances at on-site events like tradeshows.
I don't see AI replacing the photoshoot work any time soon because it's cheap and relatively easy to produce the old-fashioned way. An example would a hotel owner who just updated his bar and wanted to some pictures of smiling attractive people hanging out at the bar.
It's possible, I just don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. What I think is more likely to happen is that you'd AI replacing the models captured in the photos (or videos) with celebrities who have licensed their image and voice.
I don't know what things will look like 50 years from now, but I think you're right about a lot of it.
The least creative work will disappear first: stock photos, for example. The "grunt work" of taking generic photos of attractive everyday people can be automated, but any steps after that still require manual art direction. Even in a world where you can automate the entire process from concept to post, there will still be ad campaigns that require a public figure or truly original work.
"Create a 30 second TV ad for a local car dealership in the style of every local car dealership add from the past 20 years" vs. "Coke's Wassup Commercial". These are very different budgets, most local car dealerships aren't looking for originality, they just want something cheap and effective.
What does this mean for people who make their living from making local TV ads? I'm not sure, but at least one of those people involved in setting the tone and direction on the local commercial could be "keyword engineering" to get good results. The rest are probably working in a very competitive market that only has jobs available for the most talented in the field.
It's already become common for home sale listings to have CGI furnishings added. I think it looks like shit, it's obvious and tasteless, but it's a new technology and I wouldn't be surprised if virtual home staging becomes the norm in 5 years. The same process happening with modeling wouldn't be unexpected. The first round will be tacky and obvious, but it will improve with time and become normalized.
1) household names like Gigi Hadid who are known for their personalities, personal lives (who they're dating, baby photos), and politics (activism). Brands want them a great deal because they're so famous.
2) models who are well-known in the industry / by close industry watchers - like maybe Jeenu Mahadevan. They can command attention and prices, and likely won't struggle to find work for a while.
3) the run of the mill model, who is often closer to other precarious show-business folk like actors and singers.
I can see the folks in the #3 category doing H&M look-books being replaced by AI-generated models - but they're also not thaaat expensive. Clothes are pretty hard to get right in CGI, not like furniture. IKEA already does shoots with CGI models.
"When You Flip Through an IKEA Catalog, 75% of the ‘Photography’ You See is CGI"
I don't see it replacing H&M look books as it does local market type digital work where the images are essentially customized stock photos. The other category it could replace would be brands filling out how an item could look on apparel. For instance, Ralph Lauren doesn't use a model right now for every skew. The other use case for would be interactive such as a customer tweaking the model to match their own skin, eyes, hair, etc. in order to better see how the garment could look at you. Suitsupply already does this with its look builder.
The prospect of needing to create (so you can own) a digital model of yourself in order to have something you can use to participate in a digital world like fashion is fascinating.
I'm trying to imagine it scaling out, but I'm getting hung up on whether there will even be demand for digital representations of real human people when it's every bit as easy to customize an imaginary one. Even if I represented myself perfectly today, the image wouldn't correspond perfectly tomorrow. How far away would it have to get to stop representing "me" and become "just another made up model," with the slightly interesting back story that it was, once, long ago, based on a real human person?
Things like art, writing, and modeling have value beyond the output. The value is in the doing, in the communication, in the internalization and practice of skill, and in the social aspect and the parties where the designers come together for Paris fashion week. We still play Chess even though computers can do it better, we should think of doing art, writing, and modeling the same way and continue to value them.
The fashion industry mostly isn't about providing attractive, comfortable, functional clothes that serve the needs of consumers. It's about making money in a way that tends to be deceptive and harmful to people.
When people see Gigi Hadid in designer clothes and are inspired to buy that clothes because they want to look like her, it's a kind of lie. In order to look like Gigi Hadid, you need to first look like Gigi Hadid.
Putting designer clothes on your body won't make you look like her.
I don't know the solution. Clothes sell when the overall image looks good and that includes the model, but that may not serve consumers all that well.
I was not aware the items shown on runway shows were prest-a-porter? I thought it was mostly a showcase, like autoshows with their concept cars.
What's wrong with fashion is the absolute lack of quality aside from "looks". The materials are usually subpar and not manufactured to last. In other words they are not BIFL.
I don't have a detailed understanding of how runway shows work, but my understanding is someone is buying those clothes, even if those clothes in specific are not pret-a-porter. Even the pret-a-porter pieces from big name designers can be stuff that looks pretty crazy to me.
I'm more wondering how one would even begin to sell clothes some other way. And I guess I don't even really know how to ask the half-formed question rattling around in the back of my mind.
But somehow regulations will also rise that will require a very crude and explicit marking of what is genuinely human/natural from what is computer-generated (with taxes amply applied to it to make up for the performance gap in favor of machines [or rather, machines' owners]).
It's already happening on food labeling (for nutritional & health impact) and many other certification types. Will happen for AIs too, it's just a small matter of time.
I used to be a model and I'm a tech founder, I see/personally know founders of businesses in this exact area and the market for it is very, very limited. AI and 3d rendering in general is extremely poor at rendering clothes. There's a segment of fashion where it doesn't matter that much, but generally speaking, it does for 90% of it. Not only high fashion brands, even fast fashion ones like COS, Zara, etc., won't accept a difference between tight fit & minimally loose fit of a t-shirt - the tiniest nuance makes the price $200 or $20. Those are two entirely different products aimed at two different demographics. So as long as this problem isn't solved, and my money is that it won't get solved well enough for a long, long time, there's nothing to talk about.
> I Am a Model and I Know That AI Will Eventually Take My Job
Ah, but are you a _large language_ model?
... thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week :-)
> “I work alongside writer Ama Badu, who is a woman of color. It’s important to have that voice. ... I want Shudu’s story and her background to be just as authentic as the way she looks.”
The modeling industry is amazingly toxic and exploitative. Young girls starving themselves into eating disorders and photoshopping themselves to impossible beauty standards all just to tap into the tiny human-coathanger meat market. If this industry died, little would be lost.
Models are empty creatures. The camera lens fills them with color and texture, and, once in a while, even mystery. But just like there is no mystery to a vacant lot, it's just there until you put something interesting on top of it.
For static media this makes sense. When it comes to generating realistic movement it seems like AI still has a ways to go. This effect is stronger for some specific modeling situations like hand models that show devices being used.
> When it comes to generating realistic movement it seems like AI still has a ways to go.
OTOH, the scenario where consumer AI augments/replaces features to the point that average people can effectively puppet an uncanny virtual model seems imminent.
Online - maybe. In-person events - no way. Take Auto shows or exhibitions, most times the models are crowd pullers, and guys are on their toes to strike a conversation!
Arguably this will go even worse; with fully CGI and "AI" models there is no real upper bound on unrealistic bodies, short of them no longer looking human at all.
Yea, this certainly won't help with the emotional collapse we see in society around keeping up with 'perfect' instagrammers and models and such. Now we'll have "perfect people" that never age, never get sick, never have human flaws. They'll only have the opinions their creators want them to say and never step out of line. Heh, no wonder capitalists want AI robots to replace people as fast as possible.
You seem to be confused between 'capitalism' and 'capitalist'. Capitalism is a system of free trade and voluntary agreements. Meanwhile every capitalist I've worked for has dumped out long list of NDA's and other bullshit and said "It's voluntary to sign this and get paid, or not sign and not work for us, but every other business in the industry makes you sign the same things, so good luck with that".
And you're not taking in consideration that no agreement is far better than a binding voluntary one.
I'm not a SME on modeling, but it's a profession in which women (and men too) have been traditionally exploited. It may not be a bad thing for it to go away.
If you have an interest in the downstream side-effects of these kind of corporate parasocial relationships becoming normalized, I would highly recommend giving Satoshi Kon's Perfect Blue a watch[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Blue