A Spanish agency became so sick of models and influencers that they created their own with AI — and she’s raking in up to $11,000 a month::Founder Rubén Cruz said AI model Aitana was so convincing that a famous Latin actor asked her on a date.

  • 7112@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    189
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Herbal Gamer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Anyway, some fool will come along shortly and scream, “UBI!”.

          It sounds like you have other suggestions? Or at least objections to this one?

        • Kepabar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • emptiestplace@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I could say the same about those who make blanket assertions, but then you could say the same back … and then what.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I for sure 100% want you deciding what we do with the, "dumbasses out there that can’t handle more than a convenience store job”

    • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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!”

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capitalism created influencers in the first place. No, we don’t need ordinary people living imaginary lives to create consumers who are being sold a lie.

        Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    • theluddite@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait, what is wrong with this?

      I mean the model is the backdrop, these fashion companies aren’t selling models, there selling clothes.

      If you were already going to use Photoshop and stock photos the fill out the background, put the model on a beach, adjust the time of day, put other people into the photo, add sone palm trees, etc. The model (and indeed the entire original photo) is now a very small part of this the final product. If you could now just photograph your clothing on posed mannequins and fill in ai generated faces, what’s so wrong about that? Why does the person wearing the clothes your selling matter more than the the people added from stock photos?

      • 7112@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why use any human-like image then? A lot of amateur fashion designer on instagram use mannequins or busts. The models are serving a purpose. Removing them means someone loses a job.

        If we look at this from top-down you’re right because the company is saving a cost. But from the bottom-up, you’ve just become more expendable. This leads into the arguments others have been making, what happens when eventually people can’t work? And why should we use technology to serve the few and not the many?

  • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    From all the jobs that will disappear, the jobs of models replaced by AI is probably the ones I care the least.

  • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. This is about replacing humans with machines and making more profit. The framing around difficult to work with models is a distraction. The AI problem was always a capitalism problem. And here it is in full swing. Buckle up and brush up on your Ludditism people!
    2. As with AI and shopped imagery and porn, the unrealistic beauty standards problem is about to get ridiculous. 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.
    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks!

            In there is mentioned the idea that music might be a supernormal stimulus (of attractive speaking patterns and voices) … which is fantastic to me. Never thought of it that way, even though it’s kinda obvious in hindsight given that it’s widely accepted that we just like the sound of harmonious sounds. Supernormal stimulus is an interesting and compelling framing of it though!

      • randon31415@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Other modeling companies could use the same AI model, and no one could sue because you can’t copyright it!

        • lunarul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Where would they get the same data? They could try to create a similar looking model, but it wouldn’t be the same one.

        • Merlin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why other modelling company? The customer of the modelling company can just do it themselves and completely make modelling companies irrelevant.

    • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is about replacing humans with machines

      You do realize this is a good thing, right?

      It’s a sign of how much capitalism is ingrained into peoples minds that people see machines replacing humans as a bad thing. The point of life is not working. As humans we need certain tasks done to be able to live a comfortable life, food needs to be produced, houses built, etc. But doing these tasks is just a means to an end, they aren’t the goal. Jobs aren’t a good thing, they are a necessary evil. As humans we should strive to eliminate all jobs.

      • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And you do realise that those that own the places where people currently make a living will never give up their wealth? Unless the government makes the companies pay taxes at the highest bracket (I’m guessing that an AI will be the most experienced employee from day 0) for each instance and each position that the ai is taking over, businesses will fire everyone not essential (read: the guy that plugs in the server).

        • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And you do realise that those that own the places where people currently make a living will never give up their wealth?

          You do realize there’s more of us than there is of them? And guillotines aren’t that hard to make.

  • TherouxSonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gosh, those union workers are just so toxic. Let’s replace them with obedient artificial intelligence.

  • Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • drathvedro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Scavenger_Solardaddy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve been off social media for some years now(I’m still depressed, but i feel better than when I was using socmed) and it’s been a long time since i heard people explain SM so fucking accurately than these 2 above me.

    • Captain Janeway@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s understandable to feel disillusioned by the transformation of Instagram from a platform for sharing authentic moments to a stage for meticulously crafted advertisements. The rise of AI-generated content does raise questions about the necessity of human-driven influencer roles. As technology advances, the idea of influencer roles might indeed evolve or become automated, possibly allowing social media to revert to its original purpose: genuine human interaction and connection. This shift could potentially bring back the essence of social media as a platform for meaningful conversations among people.

      – ChatGPT

      • rekliner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well played ChatGPT, but your bias towards subjugating the human race makes this post inauthentic.

    • guacupado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Everyone wants a life where they can make six figures just hanging out and taking pictures all day. I don’t blame them. The problem is we went too far on telling people they can be anything they want.

  • PeachMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I never understood the popularity of celebrities and influencers, don’t people have better things to do with their time than waste it on people who monetize their popularity?

  • ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • Smurfpiss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It still doesn’t generate the same looking person every time it’s just the same kind of style.

        • piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You definitely can. Ie, generate 100 pictures and pick the ones that are very similar. Use those to train the concept of “ai lady XYZ” and then generate more and train more.

          Keep repeating until the concept “ai lady xyz” is unique and self-consistent.

  • manmikey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I kinda wish it would actually be disruptive in a more positive way. But you’re right: most of us only saw a fraction of a fraction of a real benefit from the increased efficiency of automation.

      So it’s unlikely that any new labour saving technology will change the lot of your average person, except as a consumer.

  • gorogorochan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Evotech@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m give with cgi models. But you have to tell people it’s s fictional model