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.

  • Evotech@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

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

    • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      You mean like:

      Warning! You will never be in a relationship with this model.

      Yes. That seems like something people should know.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I get that this is kind of a joke, but we already have a problem with these models/influencers projecting unrealistic beauty ideals and pretending to lead these unrealistic lives, and it’s causing major issues already. If companies can basically craft exactly what they want, I can see it being orders or magnitude worse.

        • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          The point of the joke is that it makes no difference if a persona is fake or “real”. I think the issues you raise are real. But it makes no difference to unrealistic beauty standards whether artists alter an existing human body or make one up wholesale. If anything, it’s more benign if people rationally know that it is all a fantasy.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            But it makes no difference to unrealistic beauty standards whether artists alter an existing human body or make one up wholesale.

            This is what I’m not so sure about, as in the completely crafted one can do anything at any time with almost zero effort. They don’t age. They don’t have any imperfections. There’s no risk (?) of them ever going off the rails. Even tho the influences project an fake front, you can still be them, as they are real. If something isn’t even real, you could create things that could never possibly exist.

            • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              They have all the imperfections that the artists want them to have. They age as much or as little as they are made to. That’s not so different from human celebrity personas. Sometimes we get a Paparazzi photo, showing how they really look, but is that occasional reality check so different from rationally knowing that it is all fantasy?

              (I say “rationally knowing” because one criticism of unrealistic beauty is that it may be shifting our unconscious knowledge of what is normal. If that is true, then rational knowledge is not helpful.)

              Even tho the influences project an fake front, you can still be them, as they are real.

              I think this goes to the heart of the argument. I don’t think that is good.

              Influencers (and other celebrities) typically portray themselves as being happy and well-adjusted, living exciting and fulfilling lives; all while being surrounded by luxury products with generous marketing departments. I don’t think that the idea that you could actually be such a person is psychologically beneficial to anyone (except those brands, obvs).

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                I don’t think that is good.

                No one here is saying they think this is good. Just the fact that, because a human has done it, it is something actually attainable by a human. If you remove the human, you remove that logical conclusion.

                But to make myself abundantly clear, I think far too often influencers are trash doing a lot of harm to society, especially due to the deception about their contentedness.

                • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Just the fact that, because a human has done it, it is something actually attainable by a human.

                  I think I am misunderstanding something. It is not attainable to be a person like influencers typically pretend to be. It’s only possible to be a pretender, just like it’s possible to be a CGI artist creating AI imagery.

  • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

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

    • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Two points:

      • Companies can more easily manipulate us with marketing if they can just create the perfect model.
      • The whole push towards diversity in advertising, particularly in body size and shape, is going to go out the window. Many people will no longer see themselves represented, which could make self esteem go down and the subsequent consequences of that.
  • 7112@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months 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
      0
      ·
      10 months 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
        0
        ·
        10 months 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.

        • Knusper@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Why do you feel this is different from the Industrial Revolution et al? They also made certain jobs redundant. People were either given different tasks or had to find different a new job. It was certainly not easy and I would certainly like things to go over smoother this time around, but in my mind, worst-case is that it will simply go over like in the Industrial Revolution.

  • manmikey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months 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.

    • WallEx@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      When steam engines came around this were the arguments against. Also the same when looms were invented. I kind of get it, new stuff, that can change a lot, is scary. But being stuck because of that is the wrong way imho

  • Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months 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.

    • the_lennard@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Thanks Margot, for taking some time out of your busy schedule to post this fabulously intricate meta-contribution on bots, identity, and social media! Its much appreciated.