[HN Gopher] I am a model and I know that artificial intelligence...
___________________________________________________________________
I am a model and I know that artificial intelligence will take my
job
Author : elorant
Score : 112 points
Date : 2020-07-23 09:43 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vogue.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vogue.com)
| felipemnoa wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree with this. Just like people still like to go
| to live concerts I think that people will still like real live
| models. And knowing that a real live model has a limited life
| span will make them way more interesting while in their prime.
| Besides, what makes a person quite interesting many times is not
| necessarily only how they look but how they live their lives.
|
| I do agree that AI models may/can become huge. But there will
| still be plenty of room for human ones.
|
| It almost feels that if AI models became prevalent the result
| would be to make some human models even more interesting.
|
| This is just a gut feeling of course.
| Normille wrote:
| Don't worry. I'm sure there are plenty of other job opportunities
| available for someone with a skills portfolio consisting of
| looking vacuous while wearing expensive clothes.
| dang wrote:
| " _Be kind. Don 't be snarky._"
|
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| curiousllama wrote:
| This is one of the few "AI will kill X" that I can see (if the
| article's claims are true). This wouldn't just impact models - it
| would automate the entire shooting process.
|
| Models are cheap, but the overhead of the process is expensive.
| Hiring a photographer, lighting person, studio space, model,
| clothes and backdrop; coordinating with relatively high-paid
| internal stakeholders (execs, designers, etc.); and
| developing/touching up photos after... Big processes add up.
| There's a need.
|
| At the low and medium end, this could totally replace the shoot
| process. Presumably, designers would have a basic version of the
| software in their standard toolkit (you can see it in a catalog
| before it's shot - talk about sales!), so the marginal cost would
| be 0. There's no differentiator - no friction.
|
| If the software's output is comparable to a shoot for a
| department store, the there's a real solution.
|
| Why would I ever bother with a physical shoot?
| zippy5 wrote:
| Isn't this basically Instagram?
| supernova87a wrote:
| Just earlier this week, I was talking with a colleague about all
| the hidden jobs that no longer exist because of software. And
| these are not jobs that dramatically went away all at once, like
| a team of longshoremen being cut in the movies.
|
| Think of all the teams of bookkeepers (yes, actual people who
| penciled numbers in books) who were obsoleted by Excel being able
| to let a store owner do a calculation/scenario by himself that
| would take accountants a week to do.
|
| Think of all the secretaries whose work disappeared (or were no
| longer needed in proportion to the growing economy) as soon as
| personal calendar software and meeting invites became common.
|
| Graphic designers / publication layout experts you would pay
| because you didn't have desktop publishing software.
|
| There are more jobs lost silently to these kinds of developments
| than any factory being shut down dramatically. (for the US at
| least)
| TLightful wrote:
| Counterpoint: I'm aware of Excel giving birth to many, many
| accountants!
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Cashiers are on their way out. You can walk into any Walmart
| and see two people in line for 10 minutes because of the 50
| available registers only 2 are open. Walmart wants to drive
| people to use the self checkout. I hate it because invariably
| something goes wrong and you have to compete for the sole
| person manning that section.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| Self-checkout only stores is exactly what hell looks like. I
| hate self checkouts with a burning passion, if not for the
| sake that I got duped as a consumer to work for the company,
| while paying the same price on my goods, but for the fact
| that they aren't faster, they certainly aren't friendlier,
| and generally cause a certain level of frustration or anxiety
| for the consumer.
|
| If you care about accessibility and not being ageist, they
| are terrible for people with disabilities or the elderly. You
| will almost see no old or disabled person using a self
| checkout line.
|
| As a show of more anecdotal evidence, a recent large grocery
| store chain in my large populated city of 2+ million people
| experiment with going self-checkout only failed so bad (lost
| so many customers and people were complaining), they hired
| cashiers again to basically scan people's groceries for them
| at the self-checkout line. Now they are stuck with the worst
| of both worlds.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| I hate this thought process with the same burning passion
| you hate self checkout, probably more in fact.
|
| You dutifully wander through the aisles gathering your
| goods, You slide your card, operate the pin pad, carry your
| own goods to your car. These are all goal directed
| activities you completed for YOURSELF in order that you
| could consume or use the products you have so acquired.
| There is no fundamental difference between scanning your
| own goods and sliding a card.
|
| You aren't paying for someone to scan eggs and put it in a
| little bag you are paying for someone to manage every step
| between where the hen laid the egg and making it
| conveniently available on a shelf 1/2 a mile from where you
| live.
|
| You aren't getting paid for doing it yourself like you
| aren't getting paid for carrying your own goods to your car
| instead you are benefiting from a price point enabled by
| the degree of automation and self service that the store
| engages in. Its ironic that people simultaneously flock to
| stores that have even slightly lower prices while
| complaining about lack of help. Simultaneously driving and
| bemoaning the same trend.
|
| Your anecdote about bringing back the cashiers for the
| worst of both worlds sounds like a buggy whip manufacturer
| gleefully cackling at the unreliability of early cars. I
| believe we both know how THAT turned out. Given that
| Walmart was doing inventory on all its socks by walking
| past the socks with a wireless reader 10 years ago I'm
| pretty sure even your can of baked beans will have a chip
| in the label before long and your self checkout experience
| will be literally consist of solely being asked to pay for
| the goods in your cart. At this point paying an entire body
| to baby site each transaction would be wasteful and silly
| as 99% of them will consist of you touching a button on
| your phone or on store hardware to pay.
|
| You say that self checkout is "ageist" in an era where even
| people turning 60 years old today probably saw a computer
| by the time they were 30. In 10 years this will be true of
| our 70 year olds. Are we just supposed to pretend that
| people who didn't have a phone shoved in their hand at 5
| can't learn? That would seem in itself to be ageist. The
| reality is that old machines sucked pretty badly and older
| people don't like change and have taken their impression
| from older machines. This isn't the same thing as being
| incapable. For those that truly do have difficulties it
| ought to be sufficient to have staff on hand to help.
|
| There is fundamentally no difference between waiting in
| line 2 minutes patiently in line and standing at a self
| checkout while the attendant helps others there for the
| same duration but people don't seem to react the same at
| all. In fact properly regarded what having 4 self checkouts
| with one attendant instead of 1 cashier with one computer
| is the probability of waiting far less.
|
| Would you rather wait behind 3 other people or would you
| rather checkout out immediately and wait 30 seconds if you
| need help with the machine?
| scatters wrote:
| Why would you think you're paying the same price? Is
| grocery shopping not a competitive, low margin market?
| smnrchrds wrote:
| The Walmart near me closes opens self checkouts based on
| demand. So when the store is crowded, all self checkouts are
| open and there is a line. When the store is not crowded, half
| the self checkouts are closed, so there still is a line. I
| don't get why they would do this, but I absolutely hate it.
| raducu wrote:
| I hate self checkout because it means more work for me.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I hate self-checkouts because they treat me like a criminal
| because I have two hands capable of bagging and scanning at
| the same time.
|
| Or trying to do multiple scans and then bagging them all in
| one swoop.
|
| And god help me if I try to scale with 2 more hands.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Many machines are no longer using the scale. For example
| walmart and home depots both work like this while most
| grocery stores still do.
| kepler1 wrote:
| You mean, it's not the 25% discount lane to you?
| vangelis wrote:
| Cashiers at least know how to bag. Most people using self
| checkouts move at speed of a sloth on ketamine.
| Aerroon wrote:
| These kinds of jobs being replaced by software is an increase
| in efficiency. Those people well by and large end up doing
| something else that's useful for society.
|
| A digger (machine) replaced a lot of workers with shovels, but
| in the long-term it has clearly been good for society.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Has it? Those gains in productivity seem to be increasingly
| captured by the executive and capitalist class[1]. "Society"
| is 90% people who have not seen much benefit to their bottom
| line.
|
| [1] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
| Aerroon wrote:
| The graph would very heavily depend on definitions,
| wouldn't it? Such a sharp change should easily be tracked
| down to a specific event. The entire economy doesn't just
| decide to to things differently in sync without an external
| factor. So, what happened at that time?
| zippy5 wrote:
| To be fair, looks like the graph starts to flat-line in
| 1972-1973. I think that lines up with Nixon leaving the
| gold standard in 1971 and going to China in 1972. It's
| possible that globalization may have ended labor scarcity
| in the U.S. and thus labor has no leverage to capture
| productivity gains.
| Johnjonjoan wrote:
| This is a point that is being missed.
|
| I think one way to solve it is creating institutions that
| invest in the job cutting technology on behalf of workers.
| This way workers pick up the productivity gain and not the
| businesses that employ the technology.
|
| It would be a massive shake up and would seem very seizing
| the means of production in a indirect way though.
| seibelj wrote:
| Alternatively, a lot more businesses were created because the
| sum total of labor required to run a business went down, so
| businesses that would have been unprofitable back when it took
| a room of bookkeepers to manage a department store can now
| exist.
|
| People think that economics is a zero-sum game, but the endless
| drive for efficiency and productivity is what makes our world
| possible and lifted billions out of abject poverty. It is the
| opposite of zero-sum.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| The value that economics promises to create is wealth-
| weighted. By this metric, destroying the ability of a million
| people to eek by is a huge win if it makes a person worth ten
| million times as much worth twenty million times as much.
|
| Thankfully, as you point out, it often does the exact
| opposite and makes everyone richer! But not always, not
| reliably, certainly not as a fundamental guarantee. "The
| Wedge" plot illustrates this fickleness, where about 40 years
| ago the American story switched from "a rising tide floats
| all boats" to "rich get richer, poor get poorer." The economy
| kept growing, but the overwhelming majority of people not
| only did not manage to capture a share of the new growth,
| they did not even manage to hold on to what they had. Yes,
| those on top scooped up more money than those on the bottom
| lost -- but how is that supposed to be comforting?
|
| It frustrates me when _certain elements_ preach the
| prosperity gospel while framing it as a matter of fact rather
| than self-serving faith. I personally have faith that we 'll
| eventually figure out a compromise, but I don't believe that
| denying blatant trends helps us get there.
| perl4ever wrote:
| >if it makes a person worth ten million times as much worth
| twenty million times as much.
|
| But that never happens. Ten million multiplied by twenty
| million is 200 trillion. You can't make 200 trillion
| dollars by taking a dollar away from a million people.
| Nobody has ever made 200 trillion dollars from _anything_ ,
| but if they did, it makes no sense to think there's some
| way it could be done by impoverishing a million people who
| have almost nothing. It sounds as illogical as the Matrix
| use of humans as batteries.
| yblu wrote:
| True. Although with the increasing rate of changes, there
| would be a point where people can't re-skill themselves
| faster than their jobs are replaced by AI or software.
| Imagine change to a completely different job every 5 years.
| Hopefully societies are mostly well-off to give people food
| while they are busy learning another craft that hasn't been
| made obsolete.
| jakearmitage wrote:
| Absolutely. A friend of mine started selling her cookies
| online without any help from anyone tech-savvy. She found out
| about Wix, Canva, Stripe and a bunch of other tools and setup
| her own business during COVID. She's not coming back to her
| old job.
|
| Software empowers people.
| mlrtime wrote:
| Think about how many people run their business purely off
| of venmo or paypal alone.
| wil421 wrote:
| My father-in-law provides a good counterpoint. He worked at a
| bridge span builder when PCs were coming out. A supplier gave
| them 5 Apple computers for buying something. His boss told him
| to throw them away it's just some fad.
|
| That night he picked up a manual and learned a little BASIC and
| put together a program to do some calculations for
| manufacturing bridge spans. It would normally take 3 guys 2
| days double checking and redoing the precise calculations but
| the Apple II took minutes. Now 3 guys were free to do other
| things and a bottle neck was removed. The company could take on
| more work and the boss was pleased. "Take those things out of
| the trash!"
|
| What the boss really didn't understand was the software you
| needed to buy to make the computer useful.
| maxk42 wrote:
| This is called "productivity". It's the reason the world
| isn't full of unemployed horse-and-buggy drivers right now.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| In this case, the man-hours per bridge drop. But how many
| man-hours were available in the field pre-computer? So now
| we've got excess man-hours and we've got a choice. Either
| move those man-hours to higher value tasks OR release the
| bridgespanneteers from the job.
|
| And that's the conundrum we face with automation where we
| remove bottlenecks, and we can't retask the capacity.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Most people don't know that computer used to be a job title,
| not a machine.
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| Maybe that will help with the model scouting -> human trafficking
| pipeline.
| epx wrote:
| I am not so sure. Copying from a short horror story I wrote
| myself, "The level of earthly technology (...) was already
| advanced enough to create whole movies using digital actors
| exclusively, with perfect bodies and unprecedented beauty. But,
| for some reason, the masses still preferred flesh-and-bone
| actors, in spite of the costs and their erratic performance. The
| blurry, undefined line between the character and the human being
| is attractive by itself."
| trhway wrote:
| >whole movies using digital actors exclusively, with perfect
| bodies and unprecedented beauty.
|
| lets make one step further - how about digital actors' images
| adjusted slightly for any given movie watcher. Can't be done
| with real people. New tech isn't always "better" (like in
| "better horse"), it opens/brings in new
| possibilities/capabilities (like in "car").
| acangiano wrote:
| Natural aging will impact you much faster than AI.
| aSplash0fDerp wrote:
| If you`re one of the parties on the leading edge of the
| transition to "artificial beauty", the champagne will continue to
| flow.
|
| Beyond the fad and hype sales cycles of fashion perhaps art will
| flourish again with all of the excess natural beauty that is
| still in demand. Its still timeless!
| nabla9 wrote:
| I wonder what happens to porn industry.
| FiddlerClamp wrote:
| Presaged eerily in 1981 by Michael Crichton's terrible movie
| "Looker":
|
| https://youtu.be/2IZfSr891bE (warning, nudity)
|
| Two additional scenes stand out:
|
| 1. The protagonist watches a prototype perfume commercial with
| eye-tracking glasses, and the computer ends up superimposing the
| closing logo over the part he watched the most often (this being
| 1981, I'm sure you can imagine...)
|
| 2. The implication that the computer can determine the 'perfect'
| poses and actions for optimal viewer response ("Not enough body
| twist according to the computer"), and the physical model having
| to contort herself to fit the ideal (you can see a few seconds of
| this at 0:39 in the trailer - https://youtu.be/yoT-r1slAZ4)
| wwarner wrote:
| I think the article is hyperbole. 120 years ago, photography
| changed painting and today AI is going to change photography. It
| might be, just as with modernist painting, that freely available
| perfection creates a desire for distilled humanity that can't
| (yet) be captured by AI.
|
| I think there is a fairly huge middle ground. I wish that REAL
| models would digitally represent themselves as 3D meshes, so that
| I could preview digital clothing on them. That would really sell
| clothes man.
| hammock wrote:
| Modeling is an art form. In my opinion it's about as likely to be
| taken over by AI as any other art form.
|
| We have seen AI (or CGI) being used increasingly in film, music
| and writing, but the highest forms of these arts are not AI,
| unless they are AI for AI's sake (i.e. as a novelty).
|
| A fintech firm might now be producing daily stock summaries from
| AI. A Hollywood studio might make use of CGI in its movies. But
| the highest art form still makes without AI and will continue so
| for many decades to come.
| jfernandez wrote:
| Wow, so many questions and thoughts this article raises in me.
|
| The biggest takeaway for me was that this technology will likely
| naturally evolve to seeing ourselves in the content and clothing
| we want. Maybe it's a bit narcissistic to declare publicly, but I
| have personally seen through my own work the march towards
| personalization: what's more personal than seeing yourself
| everywhere doing everything?
| yelloweyes wrote:
| Is there really a point to rampant, non-stop technological
| advancements if the common people never really get to see the
| benefits of it? It seems like life just keeps getting harder and
| harder for the lower classes.
| hinkley wrote:
| Every year, 'Luddite' becomes less of a pejorative in my head,
| and I catch myself thinking maybe the Amish aren't being _that_
| unreasonable (except how to I get antibiotics, vaccines and
| bone grafts without also getting Twitter and online gambling?).
|
| Based on the sorts of 'unplugging' trends that get picked up
| with some regularity, I'm not unique in this experience.
|
| There is so much that's _really cool_ in tech, but that feeling
| of discovery and wonder is a dopamine high. The junk food of
| happiness. It doesn 't sustain, so you either have to let it go
| at some point, or get stuck in a loop of novelty seeking that
| doesn't end until you're just too old and tired to keep doing
| it. And like any addiction, the people who don't chose
| abstinence feel existentially threatened by those who do, and
| react as if being personally attacked. Meanwhile I'm sort of
| stuck in the middle because I don't think either works as well
| as moderation, which both sides hate because 'you people' won't
| pick a side. Novelty should be novel.
|
| I keep waiting for the West to repeat the experiments of the
| '60s, complete with zen monasteries (now with 85% less sexual
| harassment!) and Hare Krishna robes everywhere.
|
| At the risk of quoting a pervert: Everything is awesome and
| nobody is happy.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Wow, I think totally the opposite: I'm as anti-communist as
| they come, but even I recognize that if we as a civilization
| keep going down the path we're going down, there's going to
| come a day when there's no more useful work for humans to do.
| When we get to that point (but not before, you silly
| Antifas), we'll have to completely reimagine how people spend
| their days.
| Talanes wrote:
| Why not before? We've already established a system where
| most of the population is not engaging in productive work
| anyway.
| Aerroon wrote:
| But they do get to see them, they usually just don't notice
| them. Almost everyone in the developed world has a
| supercomputer in their pocket that acts as a flashlight and a
| video camera as well! Modern cars are far safer than old cars.
| They're faster than horses too. A modern combine harvester does
| the work of many people, which makes food much cheaper.
|
| There are untold small and big improvements like that that we
| just take for granted. GDP per capita roughly doubles in 20
| years. That's the combination of all of these small and big
| improvements added up on a societal scale. Before
| industrialization it could take over 1000 years to see a
| similar level of improvement in the life of an average person.
|
| My grandparents had no running water. They would wash in a
| sauna with water from a pond or well. Famines were common at
| that time. People still mostly used horses for transport. Roads
| were not paved. Clothing was mostly self-made. Televisions
| didn't even exist yet. Radios were for well-off families.
| Compare that to today in a developed country.
|
| This rampant non-stop technological advancement is what's
| making life better. It's just hard to notice if you don't think
| about it.
| renewiltord wrote:
| PlaceIt.net does this for lots of things. Love it.
| talove wrote:
| IMO, maybe but unlikely any time soon.
|
| I've lived in NYC for the last decade+. Had many friends that had
| legitimate careers as models. Some lasted a year with just a few
| shoots and a self-funded trip to Paris fashion week before they
| quit or went into debt over it. Some have been going at it for
| more than a decade and you would recognize if you flipped through
| a fashion magazine even semi-regularly.
|
| I also work in media, date someone in fashion and have knowledge
| of what actually gets paid to models.
|
| While there are a rare few who find a real career out of it and
| rise out of the traps of shitty agencies and contracts, usually
| by branching out and establishing a self-brand, none of them that
| I know made something they can comfortably retire on just with
| what we would consider the job of a model.
|
| There are certainly exceptions to this but in general, if you're
| a fashion brand, digital or print magazine offering any type of
| exposure, hiring a model is inexpensive. Rarely if ever livable
| wages. That goes for most of the people who work on sets or for
| fashion shows.
|
| So with all of that preamble out of the way, what I am getting at
| is...
|
| 1. Coordinating an AI model, that has to wear these clothes, and
| that bracelet, and be on this location, or pictures with this
| lighting sounds complex and expensive when hiring a set to
| produce the real thing is a known quantity and cost virtually
| minimum wages. 2. There are still people who deeply care about
| the art of the whole thing and do most of their work for free to
| be supported in anyway to keep doing it. I am looking on the not
| so bright, bright side here but I'd like to think AI is little
| more of a thread than stock photography.
| flycaliguy wrote:
| An AI model would provide picture perfect modifications right
| up until it's printed. An expensive service in real life.
| thrir777 wrote:
| This. Modeling and photography are low skilled jobs, with
| minimal pay and long hours. Over years system became ruthlessly
| efficient to extract value from people.
|
| Good luck replacing that with expensive AI developers to
| produce fake stuff.
| ben_w wrote:
| I have no knowledge of the skill involved in (real life)
| modelling, but I do know the skill involved in professional
| photography is a lot higher than I fully understand.
|
| For most of us, photography is just point the phone and tap
| the screen, without really giving much thought to lighting
| (colour/s, fill/spot combinations), scene composition,
| lenses, and probably a lot of things I don't even have names
| for given the stuff I've listed is stuff I only know about
| from _3D_ modelling.
|
| And conversely, the end users of a future AI synth of a model
| won't be paying _directly_ for expensive AI developers, any
| more than the average visitor of thispersondoesnotexist.com
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I have no knowledge of the skill involved in (real life)
| modelling, but I do know the skill involved in professional
| photography is a lot higher than I fully understand._
|
| Yes, but there's no shortage of people who know all the
| involved stuff...
| ben_w wrote:
| So we agree it's a high-skill job not a low-skill job?
| coldtea wrote:
| Depends on the definition of high-skill.
|
| High-skill as in "you need to know lotsa stuff", yes.
|
| High-skills as in "the skills are rare, and require a
| special degree or years or training", no.
|
| They're not that rare (there's an overabundance of both
| skilled and non-skilled photographers), and they're not
| that hard to pick up (to the point that 18 year olds can
| know all there is to it with a little determination and
| practice).
|
| Or let's just say that "high skill" is relative, and
| being a pro photographer is hardly like being a pro coder
| or a surgeon...
| Talanes wrote:
| High-skill usually implies that some sort of specialized
| training or schooling is required. Working an espresso
| bar is also a delicate skill, but no one calls baristas
| high-skilled workers.
| lallysingh wrote:
| Simple. The model can be the last part of a production
| pipeline in meatspace that gets replaced. There's a lot of
| post production that happens after a model shoot.
|
| Render the clothes on the model before production to test
| demand. Render the model in the outfit the customer has in
| their cart right now.
| vangelis wrote:
| They have low barriers to entry. I wouldn't call professional
| photography a low skill job. I can't really speculate on
| modeling.
| Jyaif wrote:
| Virtual models gives you a lot of flexibility. For example, you
| can change the skin color of the models depending on the
| country of the IP address. You can even tailor the body types
| of the models for every customer to maximise the sales.
| jerf wrote:
| I wonder if, after a torrid love affair with AI models, we'll
| have to return to human models simply because nobody could
| resist the urge to tweak the AI model parameters beyond what
| is sensible and useful over time, as AI modeling users
| compete to stand out that little bit more. Convenience of
| flexibility could become a problem, in the long run. Not that
| models haven't had their own problems with trying to conform
| to whatever the industry's standards of beauty is this month,
| but having to still be living human beings has at least kept
| them on Planet Earth to some extent.
| tux1968 wrote:
| You know a lot more about this than me, but one potential
| counterpoint though is Ikea already using ~75% computer
| generated images in their catalogues. When the technology is
| mature enough, it provides a huge amount of flexibility
| compared to a photo shoot.
| [deleted]
| fock wrote:
| which does probably not really relate to AI. all the chinese
| amazon-sellers do it as well.
| smoe wrote:
| I don't know nothing about all this. How much of work that
| involves models has an actual creative process behind it vs.
| having someone pose in front of a white background with a
| product for a catalog?
|
| The latter seems to be bound to be replaced by AI eventually. I
| could see something similar happen like to orchestral music for
| movies and games where since years only few players, especially
| soloists, are recorded live and the rest is entierly made up by
| virtual instruments good enough to trick most people into
| thinking there is an full orchestra.
|
| Think we are going to have real models for the magazine covers
| and expensive ads for a long time. But for e.g. online clothes
| shopping, to be honest, I would prefer to be able to switch out
| and modify the models to something closer to my body than what
| they usually are.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I've still never heard a virtual trumpet that sounds like a
| real trumpet. Not even close. Each trumpet player has his own
| tone or "lip" that is unique. I can tell who is playing just
| by a few notes.
| smoe wrote:
| Solo I don't think there are many virtual instruments that
| get even close to the real ones. But grouped together,
| mixed with real instruments, it gets a lot harder for the
| untrained ear. Especially in a context like a movie where
| the music is not the primary focus and often much less
| nuanced.
| TAForObvReasons wrote:
| > hiring a set to produce the real thing is a known quantity
| and cost virtually minimum wages.
|
| The interesting question is whether the cost of the technology
| solution can be brought down below the cost of the human
| solution. If it can, then it's not a question of "if" the
| humans will be replaced but "when". I don't know enough about
| the cost structure to give an answer.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| It depends on the kind of shoot. A picture for a catalog is
| going to be much cheaper than a picture for an ad. The reason
| isn't just the model's time, it's all the other work that goes
| into it. A picture for an ad, all things considered, can be
| surprisingly expensive. So the catalog images are easier to do
| digitally and the ad images have a larger incentive to make
| cheaper. If you can replace enough of the pipeline, you can
| save significantly. The model is just a part of that, but
| they'd still lose their job. Even the simple catalog work where
| you might digitally change that solid red t-shirt to blue and
| green and orange saves time and means fewer models are needed,
| shrinking the job market.
| WalterBright wrote:
| You can already see that on Amazon when buying a shirt. Just
| push a button and the color of the shirt on the model
| changes.
| fock wrote:
| most of the shirts I see on Amazon actually don't have a
| model (or are rendered already)
| danso wrote:
| It's hard to imagine AI/virtual models being able to satisfy
| the high-end fashion industry's love for traditional pomp and
| pageantry. But I'd have to guess that an unlimited, cheap
| supply of perfect and customizable human models will
| unavoidably have a massive impact on the many non-A-list models
| who make a living doing photoshoots for unbranded campaigns,
| especially models who are currently used to model clothing for
| online sellers.
|
| While there will likely always be added commercial value for
| (human) celebrity campaigns - e.g. Kanye and Gap, Jennifer
| Lawrence and Dior - I'm not sure how Old Navy/Banana
| Republic/Uniqlo/etc. would suffer much at all by having digital
| models for their website and in-store photography.
| notyourday wrote:
| > It's hard to imagine AI/virtual models being able to
| satisfy the high-end fashion industry's love for traditional
| pomp and pageantry.
|
| That will be covered by the top 100 models of the time. Those
| are the ones that have millions of IG followers.
|
| The next tiers down will absolutely be replaced. The model
| interviewed about it has the exact same opinion because she
| actually lives that industry.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| There are different kinds of modelling. The old paper catalog
| - now website - modelling has already been replaced. You can
| see the results all over Amazon and various merch shops.
| Clothes and other objects have colours and textures shopped
| in effortlessly.
|
| Is that AI-able? Not yet. Making edited images look seamless
| is still a moderately skilled job, and AI is still struggling
| with basic object recognition, never mind the semantics of
| object presentation.
|
| It might be possible one day, but not for a good few years.
|
| High end modelling is about celebrity, and that's not going
| to be replaced any time soon.
|
| Likewise for high end fashion photography. You can't hand
| something like Nick Knight's work over to an AI, because no
| AI has the creativity or imagination needed to make images
| that look like that, and _engage the viewer_ like that.
|
| It might be possible in principle to automate some of the
| more obvious fashion cliches - intensely aesthetic people
| with cheek bones in a variety of exotic locations - but it's
| harder than it looks, and the quality of manual production
| values will make it very hard for AI efforts to cross uncanny
| valley without getting stuck in it.
|
| Attempts will also suffer from the CGI problem, where CGI
| turned out to be more expensive than modelling for most
| movies. And the results end up looking plastic and rather
| soulless no matter how much detail they have.
| bsder wrote:
| > And the results end up looking plastic and rather
| soulless no matter how much detail they have.
|
| The Mandalorian begs to differ.
|
| The problem was that the _actor_ couldn 't see the CGI in
| real-time.
|
| Once they built full wall displays so the actors could
| _see_ what they were acting to, everything improved quite
| dramatically.
| munificent wrote:
| As I understand it, actor performance quality wasn't the
| main driver of The Mandalorian's live CGI sets. It was
| lighting and reflections. When your main character's head
| is essentially a chrome ball, green screens really aren't
| going to cut it. They needed believable reflections and
| lighting and the live set gave them that.
| jariel wrote:
| 1/2 price of something small is still 1/2 price.
|
| If you can put your clothes on a virtual model in photoshop
| -and be done right there - that will be it.
|
| I think this will start to happen in the next 5 years.
|
| First for the 1/2 of fashion that is low-end and it will look a
| little off - but as colour and lighting and sets improve, it
| will make its way into other brands.
| jariel wrote:
| I should add: fashion and most creative industries are
| extremely cheap and cost conscious. Making that shirt for
| $19.99 entails cutting every corner possible. Every little
| bit of fabric etc. optimised to save money.
|
| Once they can start generated images 'for free' they will,
| and it may not even be the unit expense, it may be the
| operational expense.
|
| Chicago Tribune now sends reporters out with iPhones instead
| of having staff photographers.
|
| Our food supply is full of filler and garbage ingredients.
|
| Fashion brands are constantly dying, where there is a way to
| lower costs, it will happen.
| skybrian wrote:
| It seems like you're looking at the core of the job as it
| exists now, but perhaps the threat will be on the periphery?
| New technology tends to automate tasks, not jobs, but that can
| change the jobs.
|
| Stock photography probably does have some effect, for some
| websites where they might have hired a model. Suppose stock
| photography gets better, more flexible? What could a more
| ambitious stock photography company do to help clothing
| retailers find a different way to sell clothes?
| raverbashing wrote:
| Interesting. In some way, in hindsight, I believe the internet
| might also be responsible for the downfall of the profession.
| Remember the "Top Models" of the 90s and that this is less
| common today
|
| In some way, the demand for modelling has probably gone up, but
| it's more long tailed. The internet also allowed for more
| "democracy" in this area and less gatekeeping
|
| The different tastes and long-tailed nature probably
| contributed to less emphasis on "top models"/attention being
| focused on a sole person and/or mainstream beauty standards
| kerkeslager wrote:
| There are and always will be a lot of people willing to do art
| for free or even at great personal cost. I've had friends who
| modeled niche clothes (i.e. corsets) for the clothing producer,
| in exchange for a discount on the clothes (not even free
| clothes). I would go so far as to say that a lot of the most
| interesting art out there happens at break-even or negative
| valuations.
|
| That said, I don't think you're right to place big companies
| that provide most of the media presence of fashion scenes in
| that category. Big clothing companies care about selling
| clothes, not about art, and they'll follow the cheapest, most
| effective way to do that. A marketing scheme based around
| supporting artists might happen, but if it happens it will be
| because market research says it plays well with target
| demographics, not because of some sense of charity. And it will
| likely be a token gesture, not a core strategy.
|
| Look at what has already happened in fashion in the past: nods
| to fat shaming have been laughably tiny "plus sized" models,
| nods to race issues have been light-skinned black women with
| primarily European features, nods to skin not being perfect
| have been un-photo-shopped pictures of women who, from what I
| can tell, have perfect skin to begin with. And the vast
| majority of the time the gigantic Broadway/Lafayette billboard
| is a slender white photoshopped woman.
|
| The cost of doing this stuff with AI is only going down. Why
| would you pay a whole photo crew and model when you can send a
| few low-rez photos of the clothes to a team in Bangalore and
| get back a video of a "model" with exactly the body
| specifications you request, doing exactly what you want, for
| $200?
| thephyber wrote:
| While I agree with what you say, I think there's also subsets
| of modeling which can be cheaper with a computer which doesn't
| need wages, an agent, travel, or royalties. Also remember that
| models are human talent and human talent tends to come with
| costs which must be geographically local: makeup, photographer,
| scene, etc. Humans can only work so many hours a day, they can
| develop drug or eating habits, they can age. They can say
| indecorous things which will cause an outrage mob to want to
| boycott brands associated with them. All of these are costs or
| liabilities.
|
| Granted, there may be a new generation of agents that
| specialize in AI models and royalties may still exist (with
| shrinking margins), but if nothing more, AI is likely to opt
| downward pressure on wages/jobs/contracts some of the non-
| minimum-wage models. Once it's bootstrapped, it will either
| become more appealing (for the reasons I mentioned above) or
| turn out to be complex and not worth the cost/risk. Only time
| and experimentation will tell.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _Also remember that models are human talent and human talent
| tends to come with costs which must be geographically local:
| makeup, photographer, scene, etc._
|
| This sounds vaguely similar to initial discussions I remember
| with self-diving cars. It begins with "I look forward to the
| day we don't have fallible humans at the wheel" and end with
| the realization the AIs are going to be more fallible and in
| different, strange ways.
|
| I mean, hypothetically, suppose you had a system that could
| constantly monitor world fashion trends, world clothing
| markets, the routes of hip and average people and so-forth.
| In the case you might create a system that produced a variety
| of still and moving images that satisfied all the constraints
| that today's fashion industry satisfies just with a few
| written or spoken suggestions from executives. Then you'd
| eliminated no just models but a large chunk of the industry.
|
| But let's look at what "AI" is now (and what it seems likely
| to be for a while without any "revolutionary" changes). What
| you have now is a way to extrapolate typical objects out of a
| stream of similar objects. Just GPT-3 does a great job create
| texts that sound vaguely right, you can create a vaguely
| plausible looking set of still and moving images of one or
| another "typical" model. Moreover, these extrapolations
| require constant training by professional much more highly
| paid than actual models now (as the GP notes).
|
| Further, without being in the fashion industry, I'm pretty
| sure there's a lot more to a useful set of images than
| "looking about right". I suspect you could generate a model-
| image that would "work" with a kind of clothing (since both
| clothing and image can be trained). But generating a model-
| image that suits a given demographic, that expresses "what's
| becoming hip right now" and so-forth would be extremely hard.
| It may not be impossible but it would require lots of high
| paid labor by AI engineers, defeating the entire purpose once
| the novelty wears off. And all this is to say that these
| "replace human activity" approaches wind-up with the problem
| of doing an "90%" of the activity right and then foundering
| on corner cases - like self-driving cars that are easy-yet-
| impossible AI tasks.
| kbenson wrote:
| > Human talent ... can say indecorous things which will cause
| an outrage mob to want to boycott brands associated with
| them.
|
| I'm not envisioning a future in which some company creates a
| full persona for their AI models, and we get a full Tay[1]
| moment out of it, and then we've come full circle.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot)
| Talanes wrote:
| I don't think the boycott mob is a unique problem to the
| human. Could just as easily end up with an anti-AI boycott
| mob. Neither bet is fully safe on that front.
| lazide wrote:
| The difference is, the bot can be made to only say what you
| want it to. That is a LOT harder to do with a human.
|
| If you're a big outfit looking to control risks, it might
| be very tempting.
| amelius wrote:
| I think the problem is that models will become more and more
| "super-human" and computers will help with that. You can
| already see this in the amount of Photoshopping in ad
| photography. And for example in imagery aimed at children (e.g.
| the unrealistically big eyes of the Frozen characters). People
| want eye-candy and it doesn't necessarily have to be realistic.
|
| At some point it will just be simpler and cheaper to replace
| Photoshop and in fact the entire photography/imaging pipeline
| by some AI.
| qwe098cube wrote:
| i can see that software will also eat the fashion industry how
| ever not primarily with AI first but CGI+AI. I can imagine that
| there will be a transition from hollywood like VFX artists from
| film/gaming to fashion if the demand for CG models is there.
|
| Putting real life actors in AAA games has been a thing for years
| at this point, but now the graphics are so advanced that it will
| look completely photo real within the next couple console
| generations. Those game companies put real life actors in their
| movies because of the audience recognizes them. Same thing will
| likely happen for fashion as well. If you buy famous
| models'/celebrities' digital model you can reuse and license that
| however you want.
| kingkawn wrote:
| These are impressive but lifeless, and nobody wants to feel
| lifeless. It will not take hold other than as novelty.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Age will come for it sooner than 'AI'
| adwi wrote:
| My opinion as a tech-inclined person who works with many
| fashion/beauty clients in a creative capacity: fashion, in
| general, doesn't understand tech, and have been consistently 5-10
| years late adopting The New.
|
| The industry continues to be centered around still photographs--
| generally for the average campaign 90% of the budget/crew will go
| to the photographs, and video will be thrown in as an
| afterthought, even though it is an order of magnitude more
| difficult to create--and nearly exclusively those stills will be
| experienced on a computer that is told to show that same frame 60
| times every second forever.
|
| My clients are just barely starting to understand how video
| works. To try to get them to wade into 3D--and not just as a
| splashy one-off tool for attention, but for the actual day to day
| creation of hundreds of e-comm images/season--I don't see this
| happening for a long time.
| Kinrany wrote:
| Is video actually better for them?
|
| Ten hand-picked photographs will probably look better than the
| whole video they were picked from.
| MeetingsBrowser wrote:
| I am nowhere near the fashion industry, but my kneejerk
| reaction is that the industry might be slow to adopt technology
| because they don't have that much to gain.
|
| If they are very familiar with still photographs and (I assume)
| can somewhat predict how still photographs will be perceived by
| the market, what is the incentive to switch to something new?
|
| As a consumer, my guess would be that a video or 3D display
| would not create a huge spike in revenue. In fact, if done
| poorly I could even see it having the opposite effect.
|
| So what is the incentive to invest time and money into
| switching to something new and risky?
|
| -------
|
| CGI models however seem to be a different story. The cost
| saving aspect is clear cut and I as the consumer likely won't
| even realize anything has changed.
| adwi wrote:
| Those are good points, but fashion exists in a logic-adjacent
| (interesting, infuriating) intersection of Art and Commerce;
| on a big set you can almost map where someone is on that
| continuum by their order on the call sheet.
|
| On one hand, it makes total sense to ask if embracing 3D
| stuff, or pushing (to my mind) a more appropriate use of the
| digital mediums in which we create and experience most things
| will lead to spike in revenue:
|
| If you do it poorly (read: solution looking for a problem) I
| wouldn't expect that to make much of a leap in any real
| metrics--and if companies are trying to pass off images on
| the wrong side of the uncanny valley that'd be more likely to
| hurt than help.
|
| But it's the Art that actually sells the "lifestyle" (read:
| clothes), and if you can create a gobsmacking incredible
| experience that makes people feel things you will absolutely
| see that in metrics and earned media and attention...
|
| There are so many interesting technologies that are widely
| accessible today that fashion companies aren't embracing
| because 1) they don't know to look for them and 2) they don't
| understand how they work. Small example: I absolutely blew a
| (publicaly-traded) client's mind showing them a projection
| mapping concept... 2 years ago, well after the tools made it
| a 15 minute job they could have gotten the savvy intern to
| execute.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Ah, the realization of this Al Pacino classic:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuAjeuKXX7c
| ickwabe wrote:
| I think many of these comnments are missing the broader
| implications for the fashion modeling world in general.
|
| Right now there are a lot of folks that are not models tied into
| this as well: photographers, lighting and set people, makeup,
| dressers, travel arrangers, fixers, etcs.
|
| I can easily see a near future with the equivalent of Unreal
| Engine for modling. All sets, lighting, makeup, AND people in
| picture will be life-like. There will be easily configurable
| random but realistic auto-posing, etc.
|
| The jobs will all become highly comodified down to low paying
| jobs for long hours much like the video game industry is today.
|
| And _none_ of the afore mentioned jobs or attendent costs will be
| required.
|
| As for consumers wanting to "know" the real models and their
| lives and advantures? Ok well, I'll get off your lawn grandpa. If
| current trends contue, none of that will matter. Folks already
| form para-relationships with digital/fantasy people (re: go to
| any cosplay convention). So the models not being "real" will pose
| no barrier in the long run.
| agumonkey wrote:
| the era of artificial / roboticized everything is gonna be
| "interesting".. we need to exist for others even if we have
| nothing to do (as obligations, survival or else).
| kipply wrote:
| there is also rosebud.ai which creates images of clothing on
| (deepfake) models for businesses. It's supposed to save time and
| possibly money on photographers/models. Really excited for this
| to become viable for small businesses <3
| eplanit wrote:
| I was actually hoping that at the end, it would be revealed that
| the article was written by a bot.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| It seems more like the job of "Model" is being replaced by
| "Instagram Influencer". Companies can get attractive people on
| Instagram (possibly a CG person) to show off the clothing for
| them, and seemingly quite cheaply.
| miguelmota wrote:
| An example of a completely AI generated Instagram "influencer"
| is Miquela (@lilmiquela) with 2.5M followers
|
| https://www.instagram.com/lilmiquela
| bayouborne wrote:
| "What if every time you shopped online you could see yourself in
| the clothes?"
|
| What if every time you shopped online you could see a version of
| yourself you'd indicated you want to be (via a thousand small web
| interactions) in those clothes?
| EGreg wrote:
| Can someone tell me why models are so in demand? Can't people
| remix existing photos and so on? There are tons of stock photos
| now too. It's not like they need a new model for every time they
| show a watch.
| umeshunni wrote:
| That's kind of how it works these days. Photographers take a
| single photo of a model wearing a particular style of outfit
| and other similar outfits are photoshopped in. So, instead to
| taking a photo for each outfit and for each variant of the
| outfit, they just take one.
| flr03 wrote:
| Well at least one of the reasons is that every 3 to 6 months
| fashion brands release a new collection. They need fresh photos
| to advertise that.
| realtalk_sp wrote:
| What's considered aesthetically pleasing continually evolves
| over time. There are underlying trends in physical beauty that
| resemble what we see in fashion, art, music, etc. Humans also
| have a quite a lot of control over much of their appearance
| with hair styling, makeup, and (increasingly) cosmetic surgery.
| This, combined with the ageism inherent to modeling, adds up to
| fairly sustained demand.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Having a good model can set your photos apart from stock
| photos, even if they are doctored a bit. This is especially
| important if you don't have someone on hand with good photoshop
| skills (which is probably also in demand).
|
| I guess this is all dependent on how "in demand" models are...
| notyourday wrote:
| > Can someone tell me why models are so in demand? Can't people
| remix existing photos and so on? There are tons of stock photos
| now too. It's not like they need a new model for every time
| they show a watch.
|
| Usage rights.
|
| Time of models and photographers is cheap - for below
| supermodel catwalk class it is less than $150/h including the
| overhead. For catalog/commercial models $50/h including
| overhead is a good pay.
|
| Buying out of usage rights is expensive. Worldwide buyout for a
| dozen images for 1 years could easily be $50,000. So instead
| they get those 12 images for that specific usage type (online)
| for the time rate + $1
| alex_g wrote:
| My first thought at seeing this title was that it was an
| autobiography of a machine learning model.
| pdubs1 wrote:
| Pardon me for my indifference to an occupation & industry which
| has no net positive impact on society.
|
| An occupation, which is incredibly shallow and requires no skill.
| Sounds worthless and replaceable to me.
| rosywoozlechan wrote:
| Actual models are already unrealistically attractive and fit so
| I'm a little bit worried about generated models are going to make
| people feel about themselves.
| supernova87a wrote:
| The fact that GPT-3 can write a better essay than I can has
| sent me into a full blown funk this last week.
|
| edit: *than I can, not "that I can", hah.
| vinniejames wrote:
| Influencers will take your job well before AI does.
| trhway wrote:
| >For one thing, digital models drastically reduce the
| environmental footprint associated with photo shoots and bringing
| clothes to market. It's not uncommon for a model to shoot more
| than 50 outfits in a single day for an e-commerce shoot, and many
| of those samples end up in the landfills. Using 3D models would
| eliminate all of that. I spoke to Anastasia Edwards-Morel, a 3D
| fashion design expert at the design company CLO, who explained
| that by using 3D avatars and her company's design software, a
| significant portion of the supply chain can now happen in a
| computer.
|
| Model is just a top of the pyramid which is being eaten by
| software.
|
| One can see though that that may also lead to small tech-advanced
| (3d printing/etc.) object "materialization" shops popping up
| close to consumer. While you're running your morning run and
| having breakfast, the outfit chosen upon waking up (based on
| looking at weather and your own "feel like") from a design
| collection just posted couple days ago (and which you can preview
| online as fitted right onto you instead of a model - it may look
| good on a model and not on you and vice versa) is getting
| "materialized" and delivered right to your door (and your
| previous ones which you don't need/want anymore are collected for
| recycling, refurbishing, donation, etc.).
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I can see models being eliminated just because operating with
| them is politically dicey and fraught with ethical issues.
|
| So many stories of abuse and mistreatment and them eating tissue
| paper or being sexualized at 14 keep periodically occurring that
| eventually enough people will just say forget it and use digital
| creations.
| munificent wrote:
| Conversely, I can see models _not_ being eliminated. Because
| the people in power with money and choosing where to spend it
| would rather spend it on pretty women they can creep on than
| throwing it at a few nerds and a supercomputer.
| dfilppi wrote:
| You had a good run
| oh_sigh wrote:
| This is for the best. It seems especially damaging to the
| formation of a fully actualized human to derive your living
| merely on being born looking a certain way. Maybe I'm wrong, but
| is there any particular skill to being a model?
| Animats wrote:
| It's already here.
|
| See Marvelous Designer[1] and CLO[2]. These are CAD programs for
| designing clothes. They make both a 3D model for viewing and
| patterns for cutting and sewing. When design moves to CAD, the
| designer already has a 3D model before the clothing is made. So,
| for catalog photos, there's no need for human models.
|
| Mostly. Those two companies need better hair shaders.
|
| [1] https://marvelousdesigner.com/
|
| [2] https://www.clo3d.com
| Imnimo wrote:
| I think the biggest potential for AI in fashion will be to allow
| a customer to do "virtual try-on" - see a clothing item rendered
| on the customer's own body. Maybe eventually we'll reach a point
| where it's way cheaper to synthesize a photograph of a model
| wearing an item, but how expensive could those really be to make
| using a human being and a camera? But if you can synthesize a
| model wearing a shirt, it's not that big of a step to instead
| synthesize ME wearing that shirt. I can't easily get pictures of
| me wearing every shirt in the store the traditional way, so even
| an expensive, slow or flawed AI system to accomplish that would
| still have value.
| elliekelly wrote:
| I suspect I would buy significantly fewer clothes online if I
| saw a picture of myself in them first. The model sells me on it
| because somewhere deep in my brain I think maybe those clothes
| will make _me_ look like the model.
|
| As a customer, I would definitely be better off with an AI
| Selfie - I'd be happier with my purchases more often and maybe
| even get some sort of hidden psychological benefit to not
| looking at unrealistic model bodies. But I'm not sure retailers
| would stand to benefit much.
| FearNotDaniel wrote:
| Nonsense. Maybe the generic low-end catalogue models will be
| replaced by some kind of AI but it definitely won't happen in
| high fashion. I've worked for some of these organisations and
| it's ALL about the in-person social aspects of the industry.
| Catwalk shows are an event with real people, not because it's the
| most effective way to showcase the physical items but because it
| creates a buzz that everyone wants to be a part of. The business
| thrives on parties and bars and muses and the backstage chaos,
| frantically pulling everything together at the last minute so
| they can glide out there and look serene for a few brief seconds.
| The designers and stylists and hair and makeup and accessories
| people love working with the girls - even the difficult diva
| types who turn up late and think they own the whole show -
| because it brings fun and spontaneity and joy and relationship
| building and uncertainty, the dangerous unpredictability, just on
| the threshold of losing control, is a big part of the energy and
| many people in the business have their entire 24/7 social life
| wrapped up completely in their careers. These techno "models" are
| a gimmick that will be used for as long as they grab headlines
| but in the long run, fashion people love people (each other, not
| necessarily their consumers) and - this may be hard for many IT
| types to comprehend - the business will always thrive on those
| people who are able to walk into a room and move around and pull
| faces that grab attention in surprising and unexpected ways,
| especially if those people are also _enjoyable_ to work with in a
| way that some CGI never could be.
| jeswin wrote:
| > this may be hard for many IT types to comprehend
|
| Save the condescension, this wasn't written by an 'IT type' or
| published on a tech journal.
|
| All industries that got disrupted by more modern technology
| came up with arguments similar to the ones you brought up -
| bookstores vs amazon, brick-and-mortar stores vs ecommerce,
| face-to face meetings vs video calls, film vs digital,
| newspapers vs internet.
|
| There will always be demand for high end fashion, but
| eventually it'll get relegated to a niche.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Yes. The "human factor" was supposed to have saved all those
| industries. Nope.
| skwb wrote:
| The "human factor" is still why we don't have AI replacing
| doctors! There's a lot AI can and should be doing for
| improving worker efficiency in many industries, but
| ignoring "human factors" leads to 737 Max sort of screw up
| for deploying automation technologies.
| FearNotDaniel wrote:
| All those industries thought they could rely on their
| _consumers_ , en masse, valuing the human factor over price
| and convenience. In the same way, Vogue may disappear as a
| print publication and with it the newsagents, printing
| presses, distribution networks... But readers consuming
| digital Vogue on a tablet still demand striking, original
| content, and the people who _create_ that content will
| continue to value the human factors I have outlined above.
| munificent wrote:
| I remember when people said brick and mortar music stores would
| be fine because people cared so much about the human experience
| of going into a physical space devoted to music and interacting
| with a knowledgeable, passionate employee.
|
| Humans thrive on real in-person contact, but you wouldn't know
| it if you looked at how we acted.
| skwb wrote:
| It depends on the type of store (high end vs low end)! It
| seems every 3rd business in Venice Ca is some sort of
| boutique clothing store. Pandemic withstanding, they have
| focused on prioritizing real in-person contact to drive
| revenue. At the lower end when clothing is commoditized,
| there's a smaller difference if you're buying at Ross,
| Walmart, or Amazon.
| skwb wrote:
| I think you're completely correct. Most successful automation
| technologies tend to create two markets: the lower end mass
| consumption market and a higher end artesian market.
|
| Power looms certainly drove out hand looms, displacing many
| artesians that supplied most clothing in the 18/19th century.
| Suddenly clothes were cheap because of a new technology! But
| does that mean there's no market for specializing in the higher
| end clothing that requires special attention and detail? No!
| Instead, the market tends to bifurcate into the mass
| consumption market and higher end artesian market (I certainly
| know many people who do like the higher end artesian
| products!).
|
| I think we need to worry less about if we have X or Y
| technology that will disrupt a working class of people, and
| instead focus on building up a more robust welfare state to
| allow these people to have a meaningful place in society.
| jkaving wrote:
| As others have commented there are lots of costs and logistical
| complications involved in a traditional photo shoot. You need to
| have all the garments of the outfit, the model, the photographer
| and all support staff in the same place at the same time.
|
| Replacing this with all digital models and clothes would be a big
| cost reduction.
|
| However, it is still relatively hard to render photo-realistic
| faces and there's still a long way until all clothes are
| available as 3D models with realistic simulation of fabrics etc.
|
| But there are already solutions being used today that achieve
| some of the benefits without using completely generated content.
|
| Looklet[1] provides a system where each garment is shot
| individually on a mannequin. This is done by a couple of
| operators in a custom studio, typically placed in a warehouse or
| similar where samples are received. The images are then combined
| with other garment images and previously shot images of models to
| produce photo-realistic catalog images without the need for a
| traditional photo shoot. The web page has sample images and a
| list of retailers using this technology.
|
| Take a look at e.g. Saks Off 5th's[2] catalog and see if you can
| spot the images that have been produced in this way.
|
| [1] https://www.looklet.com
|
| [2] https://www.saksoff5th.com/c/women/apparel
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| My first interpretation of the headline was: a self-aware deep-
| learning model predicted another deep-learning model to replace
| it.
| esfandia wrote:
| Yes, I thought maybe it was another article written by GPT-3.
| the_other wrote:
| 42.
| tolbish wrote:
| You're not entirely wrong.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Oh cool we live in a Douglass Adams book. Oh no we live in a
| Douglass Adams book!
| jacquesm wrote:
| You have two s's too many.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
| Townley wrote:
| I was skeptical, but while I was reading the article my wife
| looked over my shoulder at the photo on top of the article.
| Unprompted, she asked "Wow, she's absolutely gorgeous. Who is
| she?"
|
| We might be further along towards CGI models than I thought
| Talanes wrote:
| The photo at the top of the article is the author, not the CGI
| model.
| [deleted]
| ansible wrote:
| That article, and the related one about Miquela Sousa [1] now
| have me thinking in several directions.
|
| 1. How long before someone plugs in a GPT-3 backed chatbot to
| handle the comments for these virtual models? Eventually, AI
| powered voice synthesis, lip-sync and animation (helped by a
| kinematics model) will handle basic animation, to allow real-time
| chat with a "virtual model" who can walk and talk. This could be
| my big ticket to Internet fame and fortune!
|
| 2. And then someone will want to marry one, a la William Gibson's
| novel Idoru. It'll be a real fight when true AGIs are asking for
| equal rights. But how about before then when someone wants to
| extend rights to a fancy chatbot with an animation package that
| we _know_ isn 't sentient? Will forming a corporation help or
| hurt that effort?
|
| We do live in interesting times.
|
| [1] https://www.vogue.com/article/lilmiquela-miquela-sousa-
| insta...
| thewarrior wrote:
| I recently started brainstorming with my brother about what
| fields are actually likely to be disrupted by AI technologies
| that exist today and the list was quite surprising and unlike
| what I had seen in the media. The impact is likely to start in
| the creative industries. Entrepreneurs feel free to steal :
|
| 1. Hollywood in the Cloud : The progress of computer vision
| algorithms, game engines like Unreal and massive computation in
| the cloud mean that in 25 years time you maybe able to produce a
| Hollywood quality movie by writing code. Unreal engine will
| render the backgrounds, Deep neural nets will generate the actors
| voices and faces and code will be used to stitch everything
| together. This may also include the production of background
| scores by neural nets primed on music in similar scenes. The
| number of people needed to produce a film will be cut by 10x and
| we will see an explosion in film making. Tik Tok is an early
| example of this.
|
| 2. Digital Models: This is connected to the above. You will also
| see digital models being used on billboards and news readers will
| be replaced by models like GPT-3 that convert data into
| narratives and then they are read by digital newsreaders. They
| may even make it interactive by reading out the most popular
| tweets or having fake discussion between AI models with different
| personalities.
|
| 3.Lawyers : GPT-3 has given me a lot of confidence in predicting
| a major disruption to legal research. You can probably semi
| automate case research and you don't need armies of junior
| lawyers or para legals to fight cases.
|
| 4.Accountants: This relies on the continued improvement in
| computer vision in the ability to read and interpret printed
| invoices. More and more transactions will happen via APIs and be
| shepherded by digital accountants too.
|
| 5.Programmers: I am less sure of how programmers will be replaced
| but there are some obvious avenues. Natural language interfaces
| could make most front end work obsolete. You don't really need an
| Uber app if GPT-3 on steroids can understand exactly what you
| want and then produce a widget on the fly that shows you the
| appropriate information on demand. Most simple apps will be
| folded into natural language assistants which means that front
| end work will go down. What does exist will be designed with the
| assistance of AI tools. The backend work could also increasingly
| be subsumed into making a knowledge base that can learn and
| respond to intelligent queries.
|
| 6.Therapists: Smarter NLP models could act as digital therapists.
| People maybe more comfortable talking to a digital therapist and
| not be judged by an actual person. They can be given digital
| bodies and voices to make them more realistic. GPT-3 is way ahead
| of ELIZA and even in the original ELIZA studies people became
| quite attached to it. Technology is making people lonely and
| people may turn to technology to fix it.
|
| 7.Fake twitch streamers / Cam models: Synthesis algorithms could
| become so advanced that some people could become more attractive
| versions of themselves and create fake model personas that make a
| lot of money on websites like Twitch.
|
| Our economy and education system are probably unprepared for the
| scale of disruptions we may see.
| 627467 wrote:
| This reminds me of another article on IKEA's catalogue: at least
| 75% those photos are 3D renders[0]
|
| I can definitely see how a major fast-fashion brand can adopt
| this practice.
|
| Won't kill Paris and NYC fashion week, but certainly will
| decrease the number of models that are currently paid for more
| trivial modelling jobs.
|
| [0] https://kotaku.com/most-pics-in-ikea-catalogues-arent-
| photos...
| 627467 wrote:
| When I say Paris and NYC fashion week won't be kill I mean: the
| more artistic and high aspirational side of fashion will always
| be driven by humans (IMO) and humans will want to work with
| other humans. Not a fashion designer but I suspect it is hard
| for you to design clothes for a digital human to wear. I mean,
| if you're a game designer maybe you're moved by that. But not
| sure a fashion designer would.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> The company uses generative adversarial networks (GANs), which
| is a type of machine learning, a subset of A.I.
|
| "Subfield" is more correct but it's interesting that a model (and
| that's not a _language_ model) gets the relation between neural
| nets, machine learning and AI right, when the majority of the so-
| called tech press gets it consistenty wrong, e.g. using AI to
| refer to deep learning in a kind of reverse-synecdoche.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-07-23 23:01 UTC)