this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
459 points (90.6% liked)

Technology

60133 readers
3036 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7112 222 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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 73 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 20 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (6 children)

How do we intend to pay a person who contributes nothing to society?

Why must we value how a person "contributes to society" via their output for capitalism?

Is studying philosophy useless? Is making art? Is reaping the benefits of a society built upon tens of thousands of years of human innovation to just sit back and relax a bit?

Humanity worked hard to get to a point where this is even a question. If you listen to the capitalists saying "If you're not working you're worthless" then you've been tricked. Tens of thousands of years of human innovation and suffering to advance society to a point where we don't all have to work, but the rich want you to think that's a bad thing. It is not natural that the benefits of all of that effort and suffering should all collect in the hands of a few at the top while everyone else suffers.

The "simple answer" is UBI because there literally is no alternative short of outright killing people that don't work to maintain automation. You and everyone else deserves a cut of that pie, we and all of our ancestors put blood, sweat, and tears into it. Let the people relax and enjoy the fruits of that society.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 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?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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!"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 114 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

It's not like ads use real people anymore. Everything in advertisement has been highly Photoshoped for ages. I don't understand your point about representation though. It will be easier to create diverse models in all shapes and sizes.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is no reason AIs can't generate diverse kinds of people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 89 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

was already full of broken people before AI hit the scene.

so why not take the people out of the equation?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  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.
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] teejay 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Probably referring to this one: https://youtu.be/iYhCn0jf46U

Inb4 piped bot!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 year ago (12 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

And then they wonder why their sales are tanking, when it turns out AI's can't buy their products and everyone else is too poor to even consider it.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

If they only appreciate me enough to hand me my Oscar this year...

[–] captainjaneway 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Matriks404 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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?

[–] 1847953620 21 points 1 year ago

They do, but we're a stupid species.

[–] YashaB 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PeachMan 41 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago

Remember Hatsune Miku?

[–] Manmikey 23 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 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 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] gorogorochan 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Evotech 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You mean like:

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

Yes. That seems like something people should know.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] CertifiedBlackGuy 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Speak for yourself, my best friend gave me a copy of the source code ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›