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.
Remember Hatsune Miku?
We need to make struggle posts a thing. Flex your struggle fam! it would fuck the AI up for a little bit at least haha.
removed by mod
This is actually very easy to do. Check out LoRAs and textual inversions on CivitAI.
removed by mod
Well at least somebody found a worthwhile use for AI art.
So… rule 34?
Fuck yeah.
Whitney Kardashiummings
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
I read this story a few days ago, and it smacks of bullshit.
Wait, what is wrong with this?
I mean the model is the backdrop, these fashion companies aren’t selling models, there selling clothes.
If you were already going to use Photoshop and stock photos the fill out the background, put the model on a beach, adjust the time of day, put other people into the photo, add sone palm trees, etc. The model (and indeed the entire original photo) is now a very small part of this the final product. If you could now just photograph your clothing on posed mannequins and fill in ai generated faces, what’s so wrong about that? Why does the person wearing the clothes your selling matter more than the the people added from stock photos?
Why use any human-like image then? A lot of amateur fashion designer on instagram use mannequins or busts. The models are serving a purpose. Removing them means someone loses a job.
If we look at this from top-down you’re right because the company is saving a cost. But from the bottom-up, you’ve just become more expendable. This leads into the arguments others have been making, what happens when eventually people can’t work? And why should we use technology to serve the few and not the many?
I think that with these new kinds of stories, this sort of thing is super obvious because we haven’t gotten used to it and because they haven’t developed the more subtle vocabulary like officer involved shooting or how israelis are killed but Palestinians just die or how it’s always the strikers threatening the economy and never the bosses or unfair working conditions.
I don’t think anyone does this on purpose, mind you, but it’s the system evolving to suit it’s needs, as Chomsky pointed out.
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.
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.
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.
The alternative is paying people to do an unneeded job, and that’s not sustainable.
Well unfortunately that’s the proposed solution too. When you ask an AI optimist what their solution is for workers after their jobs are replaced by ai, a common answer is a universal basic income. But if you believe it’s unsustainable to pay a person to do a job that could be done by a robot (which for the record isn’t really accurate, as we’ve been sustaining that), then it probably isn’t sustainable to pay that same person for doing nothing…
So we’re left with the same problem, what do we do about the workers?
then it probably isn’t sustainable to pay that same person for doing nothing…
Why is that unsustainable?
That person isn’t going to spend their life doing “nothing,” humans have an intrinsic need to do something. Psychology has shown us pretty conclusively. The difference is once we’ve automated so much, that can be whatever we want instead of focusing on the bare necessities to survive. The only way “paying someone to do nothing” is unsustainable is if you’ve bought into the lie that our value as human beings is inherently tied to what we produce for capitalism.
I actually don’t agree that is is unsustainable, I was just pointing out the logical falicy. It’s a weird thing to say that “paying a person to do a newly unnecessary job is unsustainable”, especially in the context of AI. It doesn’t make sense to complain about something when the only proposed solution is doing the exact same thing in a more roundabout way.
Also, something that has been done successfully for years doesn’t suddenly become unsustainable just because new methods arise.
It was just a weird post.
But personally, I’m in favor of a UBI, I think it would likely work just fine and solve a plethora of problems that have been ignored in this country (USA) for too long.
I wonder if UBI is more unsustainable, or unsustainable at all - imagine a future where most things can be produced so efficiently without the involvement of humans that the idea of not doing so is simply preposterous, akin to insist on using horses after motorization became widely available. Employing humans might incur a higher lost opportunity cost than simply paying everybody to do “nothing”. I’m using “” since all those people would of course do something, just not grind for bare survival or “the economy”, which is arguably isn’t necessary anymore, or at least not as necessary as it once was.
In a way, overcoming work (as in “unwanted compensated grind”) is a way to truly live up to our potential as humans because it asks the very basic question of “how to be?” outside of what for millennia was basic necessity or narrowly defined by society.
Is that a good thing or bad thing to you?
Thanks for asking. Good I suppose. It means all this talk and moaning about being too hard to implement and there’s no system in place is prooven to be a lie. I mean, we already knew it was a lie but this is as close to proof as we’re going to get. It’s already in place, no big shocks, just tag it onto the system that’s already in place all that really changes is the name. First step is change it from welfare to basic income. Then we add the universal part afterwards. Not so scary anymore
Anyway, some fool will come along shortly and scream, “UBI!”.
It sounds like you have other suggestions? Or at least objections to this one?
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.
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.
I for sure 100% want you deciding what we do with the, "dumbasses out there that can’t handle more than a convenience store job”
I could say the same about those who make blanket assertions, but then you could say the same back … and then what.
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!”
Capitalism created influencers in the first place. No, we don’t need ordinary people living imaginary lives to create consumers who are being sold a lie.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
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.
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It has proved a highly lucrative venture for the company, with Cruz telling Euronews that Aitana brings in an average of €3,000 ($3,300) a month, but on one occasion took in €10,000 ($10,900).
Customers of CarynAI pay $1 per minute of time with the virtual Marjorie, which is described by her owners, Forever Voices, as an “extension of Caryn’s consciousness.”
But AI models, influencers, and “girlfriends” also embody the debates at the center of the nascent technology, including ethics, labor, and humanity’s ability to control it.
In a May interview with Business Insider, Marjorie said the bot appeared to have gone rogue and started engaging in sexually explicit conversations with her customers.
“In today’s world, my generation, Gen Z, has found themselves to be experiencing huge side effects of isolation caused by the pandemic, resulting in many being too afraid and anxious to talk to somebody they are attracted to,” Marjorie told Business Insider.
Users have been unable to access CarynAI for the last month after John Meyer, the chief executive of Forever Voices, was arrested on suspicion of arson, 404Media reported.
The original article contains 737 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Gosh, those union workers are just so toxic. Let’s replace them with obedient artificial intelligence.
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.
Imagine thinking there’s a can girl union
I’m trying to imagine what a “can girl” is.
Chicks who do it in the can.
Those are “Honey Bucket Babes”
Typo, cam girl?
2 girls, 1 can
What’s in the can?
What’s in the girls?
Flashbacks.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Capitalists gonna capitalist.
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.
That’s pretty easily changed with prompts if you want it though.
Quite frankly it still leaves the effect. Same goes for dark photos - that’s actually even worse. Trying to create a picture of dark wooded area always results with some sort of weird lighting be it moon or whatever fake source it generates - and yea, that’s already with “darkening” Loras and negative embeddings. If you mean photography-related lighting terms then even with that I find the lighting unnatural.
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
I’m give with cgi models. But you have to tell people it’s s fictional model
You mean like:
Warning! You will never be in a relationship with this model.
Yes. That seems like something people should know.
deleted by creator
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.
I think the issue is that they have a problem with it for the wrong reasons and fixing it for the wrong people. So the influencer issue is lying to scam people and editing their images leading and young people to expect unrealistic appearances. And the model issue is they need to be paid to live.
So here’s an AI to look unrealistic to lie and scam people and produce unrealistic standards whom you can’t date anyways. But hey, it doesn’t need to be paid to live.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
You should assume that even if the woman were real… they don’t owe you a date, relationship, their time then either.
Speak for yourself, my best friend gave me a copy of the source code ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
brown chicken brown coww
deleted by creator
Yes, and in my country (Norway) there are now laws that require any promotional image that is modified to state so.
I see a similar thing being required with fully cgi models
- 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!
- 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.
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.Probably referring to this one: https://youtu.be/iYhCn0jf46U
Inb4 piped bot!
That neck enlargement is wtf.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/iYhCn0jf46U
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
All true. But I’ve seen way more ridiculous stuff in ai imagery than I have before. There seems to be a maximising effect so unreal but still attractive that previous manipulations did not dare approach.
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
That was an excellent read, thank you.
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.
Thanks!
In there is mentioned the idea that music might be a supernormal stimulus (of attractive speaking patterns and voices) … which is fantastic to me. Never thought of it that way, even though it’s kinda obvious in hindsight given that it’s widely accepted that we just like the sound of harmonious sounds. Supernormal stimulus is an interesting and compelling framing of it though!
This is about replacing humans with machines
You do realize this is a good thing, right?
It’s a sign of how much capitalism is ingrained into peoples minds that people see machines replacing humans as a bad thing. The point of life is not working. As humans we need certain tasks done to be able to live a comfortable life, food needs to be produced, houses built, etc. But doing these tasks is just a means to an end, they aren’t the goal. Jobs aren’t a good thing, they are a necessary evil. As humans we should strive to eliminate all jobs.
And you do realise that those that own the places where people currently make a living will never give up their wealth? Unless the government makes the companies pay taxes at the highest bracket (I’m guessing that an AI will be the most experienced employee from day 0) for each instance and each position that the ai is taking over, businesses will fire everyone not essential (read: the guy that plugs in the server).
And you do realise that those that own the places where people currently make a living will never give up their wealth?
You do realize there’s more of us than there is of them? And guillotines aren’t that hard to make.
So why isn’t this happening now?
The nice thing about AI is that I can do the same thing. Anyone can do this.
Other modeling companies could use the same AI model, and no one could sue because you can’t copyright it!
Brilliant! In the end, we’ll have 12 models who’s in all advertisements.
good they can be the next celebrities and that culture can die off too
Where would they get the same data? They could try to create a similar looking model, but it wouldn’t be the same one.
Why other modelling company? The customer of the modelling company can just do it themselves and completely make modelling companies irrelevant.
