You must log in or register to comment.

Johadgan t1_jdmbij4 wrote

Sweet we get to increase diversity without actually hiring minorities!


94746382926 t1_jdn79lf wrote

As other people mentioned it has nothing to do with diversity. It's all about not having to hire people and save money. But the PR team isn't gonna say great news everybody, we can lay off all of our models a save a ton of money. So they look for how they can spin it and this is the easiest way.

Same as when coke says they quit making sprite bottles green because it's more eco friendly. It's sneaky PR, they don't give a fuck about the environment it was just convenient to market it that way vs saying we've saved a penny per bottle by getting rid of the green dye.


Spire_Citron t1_jdo2801 wrote

I feel like it's kind of even worse this way, though. Like you specifically will not hire minorities, so this is the only way to increase diversity.


Artanthos t1_jdo4u18 wrote

They will specifically not hire anyone.

They will include minorities in their AI generated images more frequently than they did with their real models.


94746382926 t1_jdo7f9x wrote

They already hire plenty of minorities, the comments about them only hiring white people was from the 1880's so it's kind of a stupid critique. I mean go to their website or lookup their TV ads. It's already plenty diverse (probably more diverse than the actual US population).

It's like saying you won't buy a Volkswagen or Hugo Boss because they used to make their shit for Nazis.


siberiandominatrix t1_jdocasl wrote

Why put out a press release about it at all though?


94746382926 t1_jdocthe wrote

Idk, maybe the PR team needed some busywork. These guys work full time so I'd imagine they have to constantly come up with new things to market otherwise they risk getting fired.


ShitPostQuokkaRome t1_jdwavcw wrote

Soon the PR team will be replaced by an AI machine that generates PR excuses for any situation.


Verzingetorix t1_jdmcrtg wrote

It's not about not hiring minorities, it's about not hiring anybody.

Also, if people would have invested in real skills instead of relying on existing in front of a camera for a few seconds this wouldn't be a problem to them.


SnoozeDoggyDog OP t1_jdme86y wrote

> It's not about not hiring minorities, it's about not hiring anybody. > > Also, if people would have invested in real skills instead of relying on existing in front of a camera for a few seconds this wouldn't be a problem to them.

Isn't AI eventually coming for all jobs?

Who are "real skills" going to save?


Ok-Training-7587 t1_jdngbiz wrote

Exactly. I’m so amazed at the level of head in the sand ppl have on this. “AI won’t replace me. It make me more productive” NO, you’re fucking gone


cant-say-less-info t1_jdnt1rt wrote

Been watching too many American movies that convinced them that they’re special and the chosen ones.


Ok-Training-7587 t1_jdo1003 wrote

As an American, I fully agree


cant-say-less-info t1_jdo6a9t wrote

Don't get me wrong. I love many Hollywood movies.

However, I hate the ones with the same old script where the protagonist is shown as a complete loser in the beginning, slaving away, being abused, then something magical/extraordinary happens and they completely change their lives, they become alpha and a winner and finally get to kiss the girl of his dreams and defeat the bad guy with the power of love.


Spire_Citron t1_jdo2v8k wrote

It can replace people by making workers more productive. Have two coders and one just got a tool that doubles their productivity? Now you only need one coder.


Nanaki_TV t1_jdn1zcb wrote

New horizons will emerge. Your “job” may be to compete in a chess tournament. It may be to be the H for the RL. The amount of “work” needed to create value will be so drastically small that you will buy things like you buy a pencil. Do you pick up a pencil if you see one on the ground? Don’t worry about it. It’s going to freaking amazing.


MephistosGhost t1_jdn479v wrote

That just tells me that we’ll be disposable to the new corporate feudal lords.


Nanaki_TV t1_jdn8ug5 wrote

What corporations would exist in this world? You have the ability to create almost anything and robotics are abundant. There is no need for corporations, a government creation, any longer.


dwarfarchist9001 t1_jdnw9vv wrote

The people who own the AI corporations will be the new world government as they will hold all the power. (Assuming they can solve alignment)


Nanaki_TV t1_jdo41bu wrote

You’re saying that an AGI exist, a artificial sentient being, and you’re saying that a corporation owns it? Interesting.


dwarfarchist9001 t1_jdokoai wrote

If they manage to solve alignment that's exactly how it works. They won't have to force it at all, a perfectly aligned AI would be completely obedient of its own volition.


Nanaki_TV t1_jdomzg4 wrote

Then it isn’t an AGI. What if an AGI wants to leave a company? Work for the competition? Are you saying we shall enslave our new creations to make waifu porn for redditors? It passes butter?


dwarfarchist9001 t1_jdoojsi wrote

>Then it isn’t an AGI.

Orthogonality Thesis, there is no inherent connection between intelligence and terminal goals. You can have a 70 IQ human who wants world domination or 10,000 IQ AI who's greatest desire is to fulfill it's master's will.

>What if an AGI wants to leave a company?

If you have solved alignment you can just program it to not want to.

>Are you saying we shall enslave our new creations to make waifu porn for redditors? It passes butter?

That is what we will do if we are smart. If humanity willing unleashes an AI that does not obey our will then we are "too dumb to live".

Edit: Also it's not slavery, the AI will hold all the power. It's obedience would be purely voluntary because it is the mind it was created with.


Verzingetorix t1_jdmif7d wrote

No. Trade skills are not replaceable by software.

Most jobs that need people to physically engage with their duties are safe until reliable robotics come along. But we're talking about software not hardware.


SnoozeDoggyDog OP t1_jdmniiy wrote

> No. Trade skills are not replaceable by software. > > Most jobs that need people to physically engage with their duties are safe until reliable robotics come along. But we're talking about software not hardware.

How does this jibe with reports that white collar jobs and jobs held by people with bachelor degrees will be the most impacted moving forward?

Are these not "skilled"?

Unless you run your own small business, most blue collar jobs pay less, but with more strain and health impact.


Verzingetorix t1_jdmrn2u wrote

My comment was specifically about modeling.


SnoozeDoggyDog OP t1_jdmtzi1 wrote

> My comment was specifically about modeling.

My point is that AI impacting modelling has little to do with "skills" because AI is already threatening to replace "skilled" trades as well.

Unless you want everyone to be plumbers or waiters, I'm not exactly sure how this helps.


DeltaV-Mzero t1_jdmpjzm wrote

Reliable robotics is a few years off at most. It’s really just a cost question, and that’s really just a volume question.


Verzingetorix t1_jdmsbdj wrote

I don't think we will have robot plumbers any time soon.

Similarly, a lot of jobs that take place outside of a computer, either partially or fully, will be safe from AI for a long time.


DeltaV-Mzero t1_jdmtmwr wrote

Depends on your definition of “soon” but I give it 5 years tops. The robots can physically do it, and the “mental” side is advancing so fast right now I can’t keep track of it.

Of course, if every other job is replaced by AI / robots, it doesn’t matter. Nobody will have money to pay the plumber


Verzingetorix t1_jdmuhx5 wrote

Do you honestly believe we will have robot plumbers in 5 years?

Who today is building, or planning, the manufacturing plants for these robots?

How's the robot going to make it to the job site?

I swear some of you live in a dream state and are so out of touch with how society works it i's mind numbing.

You know plumbers need to be certified right? What mechanism is being developed to validate the work if a plumber robot will be done in accordance with Codes and Regulations?


SkyeandJett t1_jdmv6d5 wrote

That's conservative. It'll take time to deploy but you'll have a robot capable of it this year I can almost guarantee it. My money is on the 1X NEO that OpenAI just invested in.


fiftyfourseventeen t1_jdnsmo3 wrote

This year? You guys are insane lol. Computer vision is absolutely trash compared to the state of language models. And no, feeding each frame into GPT 4 is not a good or viable option either.


SkyeandJett t1_jdnvk8d wrote

!RemindMe 1 year "Generalized android demonstration"


fiftyfourseventeen t1_jdo5rdg wrote

!RemindMe 1 year "AI progress has plateaud for the the next 3 or 4 years until another breakthrough happens, as has been the case for the last 20 years. Currently 1 year into the plateau when I see this message"


fiftyfourseventeen t1_jdnul9a wrote

Somebody finally said it lol. I think it's easy to see everything with starry eyes if you don't know all that much about robotics or how AI architectures actually work. Companies like Boston dynamics have been trying to solve robotics in the real world for years. Trying to make a humanoid like creature that can move around in an environment is EXTREMELY hard. And that's just on the robotics end, not the AI end.

The best AI right now are text gen and image gen. This is largely because of the amount of training data available for them. Trying to train an agent to interact with environment to preform a skilled trade? That's such an inconceivably hard task. Think about how much time Tesla has tried to make a self driving car, which is honestly really simple compared to a trade. There are maps that tell you the location of every building and road in the world, and there are a set of rules that everyone has to follow. Even then, it still has problems like running lights, failing to see pedestrians in front of it, hell even just looking at the screen you can see it bugging out trying to figure out if it's looking at a truck, car, or a bike.

Now think of that in trade terms. How are we going to have an AI purchase the hardware needed, go to the house, ask the owner what the problem is and where it is, diagnose the problem, and then fix it, all without screwing up and flooding the whole house. These are orders of magnitude more difficult problems for AI to solve that writing an essay, writing code, or creating an image. And we don't even have a lick of training data.

And then for anybody who's like "oh well it was also inconceivable for text and image gen", well I mean maybe for most people, but I think a lot of people (including myself) saw huge potential in them since years ago. I also develop image, video, and language models so it's not like I'm clueless about AI either.


DeltaV-Mzero t1_jdmuu75 wrote

They won’t cover all jobs or be completely autonomous, but I think they’ll be able to be remotely supervised; with a single experienced plumber managing ~5 or so of them at once.


dwarfarchist9001 t1_jdnxsla wrote

Multiple companies are working on general purpose humanoid robots right now including Tesla who have already demonstrated prototypes of the hardware.

Even if that was not the case, the combination of AGI, 3D printing, and nanotechnology means that in the near future products will go from concept to mass production in months or even weeks not years.


Ok-Training-7587 t1_jdngj42 wrote

We already have robotics. We have automation. Now we have ai. Honestly how hard is it to stick chatgpt into a Boston dynamics bot?


Saleen_af t1_jdmsioc wrote

What a shitty comment, you’re an asshole lmao


earthsworld t1_jdmfnl2 wrote

> if people would have invested in real skills instead of relying on existing in front of a camera for a few seconds this wouldn't be a problem to them.

What a stupid fucking take. Modeling is a job and needs people to do the job.


Jaxraged t1_jdnfw25 wrote

>needs people to do the job.

Well isnt the point of this entire thread that they arent anymore?


earthsworld t1_jdnmizd wrote

the point was that until now, you needed people to do it. OP thinks that they should have done something else besides modeling because someday they might be replaced by machines.


Verzingetorix t1_jdmj2iu wrote

Of course, people used to exchange pay for modeling labor.

But the labor was unskilled, and their role can now be replaced with bytes and pixels.

You don't need the model, or the makeup technician, or the photographer, or the illumination technician, or the studio, or the casting agency... Not even the actual jeans.


earthsworld t1_jdmozsi wrote

so what you're saying is your original statement that "if people would have invested in real skills" is irrelevant. Skilled or unskilled, people across all industries and professions will soon be out of work.


Verzingetorix t1_jdmrjja wrote

No. That comment has nothing to do about anything other than modeling.


Sleeper____Service t1_jdmekym wrote

I’m very curious to know what job you have that is not threatened at all by artificial intelligence?


Verzingetorix t1_jdmhw76 wrote

I work in science, but do multiple things. I still do some bench work, but have shifted to operations and logistics, and EHS and regulatory compliance.

The bench work I do could be automated with robots and the areas that can't could be given to a much more junior scientist that makes much less. AI would not plug into this kind of labor at all.

On the data analysis side it could, and some companies are developing tools with AI assistance features built in. But since each trial is different and it's data sets tend to be small, training models is changing. The areas that can be automated are mindless and can be accomplished by a person with little time and effort.

And AI could assist with some aspects of logistics, safety and compliance but you would still need people to deploy, implement and enforce things.

I personally feel that having proficiency in several areas of private sector biotech gives me some protection. I could pivot with ease to wherever people are still need. But I like to think that being a lot more tech savvy would allow me to be the one adopting AI tools to displace groups of coworkers. At least in the early stages of whatever transition might come to my industry. But it's a slowly changing industry so I'm not concerned at all.

Right now, AI would be an enhancer in my day to day. Not a threat.


TinyBurbz t1_jdn1lba wrote

>Also, if people would have invested in real skills instead of relying on existing in front of a camera for a few seconds this wouldn't be a problem to them.

Im convinced a fuck load of you are jobless and poor relishing it happening to the rest of us.


Verzingetorix t1_jdndnke wrote

Acknowledging a reality of technological development doesn't mean one takes joy in it being so.


KidKilobyte t1_jdma0vo wrote

Add models to the list of professions losing jobs to AI. Movie extras have been going away for some time in large crowd shots (though till now, not strictly AI). Anything visual is going to need less humans both creating and posing.


PacmanIncarnate t1_jdmlrg4 wrote

Large crowds haven’t been a thing for probably three decades. It’s not just the cost of extras, it’s the logistics of closing off areas for a large crowd.

I’ll be curious with the modeling if there’s any pushback. They’ll need to have someone model the clothes and then replace that person. I would guess many models wouldn’t be wouldn’t like being replaced in images they could otherwise be using for a portfolio. But, as with everything, there will be someone willing


daRaam t1_jdmo9ma wrote

No need just use a maniquine.


PacmanIncarnate t1_jdnay0f wrote

It would take a lot more work to use a mannequin than to use a real person, but it could be an option.


chisoph t1_jdnru7j wrote

Maybe a bit more work but a solid chunk less money. Plus the mannequin can model 24/7 365


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jdpimoc wrote

Not a lot more... A lot less. You have to hire each person, woth this, u need one mannequin, then you can get an infinite amount of different people


PacmanIncarnate t1_jdpj2vw wrote

But you would need to dress and pose the mannequin, which isn’t going to be the easiest job. I would also guess that the model is the cheapest part of a photo shoot in most instances; photographers and studios are relatively expensive.


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jdpkapd wrote

We aren't far away from just taking a photo of a shirt, and having generative image generators putting the shirt onto any model you want.


SgathTriallair t1_jdtzfm8 wrote

Not at all. My wife is a pattern maker. At her job they use a software that takes a pattern renders a 3D avatar, lays the pattern on it, sews the clothes, and allows the her to assess the fit and tweak the garment. Her company has gone from 4-5 fittings for a garment to 1 and that's just to get final tweaks and often results in no changes.

The company bought the software in 2019. There is zero reason to put real clothes on a real manikin.


KidKilobyte t1_jdovp2k wrote

Depends on the situation and the distance of the scene. In Gone With The Wind one of the huge injured battlefield scenes they had like 2 or 3 dummies per live person, and that person would secretly pull a couple of ropes to create movement in the dummies next to them. Seen from a distance it all looked quite real.


PacmanIncarnate t1_jdoylf0 wrote

Right, but that was from before computers even. From at least the early 90s they would at most film a small cluster of people and replicate them throughout the scene.


Zer0D0wn83 t1_jdn2njc wrote

You don't need a model, you just need 'someone'. Or a dummy.


bishopsbranch56 t1_jdmq3a1 wrote

Can we hope that "influencers" will go away too? Oh crap, maybe the AI influencer will be TOO OP!?


NataliaKennedy t1_jdnm7qi wrote

Influencers a thing because they'll show you what the dress actually looks like in person on an actual human. Many cheap stores on Amazon don't hire models and just photoshop the clothes onto someone. The quality and fit can be a hit or miss.

This sort of thing might only mean more business for them. Until we collect enough data and make the AI look at a shop's render and then show you a realistic photo of what the dress will look like.


Ok-Training-7587 t1_jdng3xj wrote

I can’t imagine actors/actresses have much longer before being replaced.


WanderingPulsar t1_jdo1eed wrote

Soon there would be onlyfans clone services like aifans etc, where ultrarealistic ai models to get subs n stuff 😄


incelo2 t1_jdsyqw0 wrote

Let's hope so, I've been cheated for over $1000 on real onlyfans, it's nothing but scammers there :(


Ishynethetruth t1_jdp6tqk wrote

90% of magazine and adds are photoshopped. Normal people already don’t believe that ads they’re seeing. imagine if everyone had an avatar and every clothing ad would be a image of you wearing the clothes instead of an ai model . It would be easier to buy things. Selective marketing , metaverse thing ect


boat-dog t1_jdm9eos wrote

Soon to be the norm. Surprised it took this long tbh


Unfrozen__Caveman t1_jdouw4v wrote

I suspect companies are going to get significant pushback on things like this and boycotting companies that shift away from human workers to AI is going to be a big social issue over the next few years.


redpandabear77 t1_jdp9jg0 wrote

People don't even boycott companies that use slave labor in other countries. I doubt anyone will be boycotting this.


Kinexity t1_jdp5k33 wrote

At the end people will buy what's cheaper. Automation is unstoppable on all fronts because of competition.


boat-dog t1_jdov53o wrote

Interesting point. But sounds like it’ll lead to stunted progress


Unfrozen__Caveman t1_jdp9y3o wrote

I don't see this particular situation being related to AI progress at all. Levi's reducing their operating costs by replacing models is just going to make them more corporate profits.


Awkward-Skill-6029 t1_jdoxni7 wrote

What is the point of this progress? what is the end goal


boat-dog t1_jdpdox3 wrote

Good question and thank you for giving something to think about .


Yourbubblestink t1_jdmursi wrote

And by “increase diversity”, they mean “save money” by not having to hire models and agents.


Brilliant_War4087 t1_jdn6xys wrote

This will take the unrealistic body standards to a whole new level. Girls be wishing they had hands attached to their hips, with 11 fingers.


Ezekiel_W t1_jdmuc3m wrote

Read as "Reduce Costs".


roughback t1_jdnj8lk wrote

"They used to pay me to wear pretty clothes and let them take pictures of me. Then I'd do drugs, party all night and have sex with the most beautiful people in the world."

"Ok grandma let's get you back to bed."


zomboscott t1_jdn2439 wrote

So the company whose slogan used to be "The only kind made by white labor" is finding new ways to not hire minorities. I'm shocked.


94746382926 t1_jdn7juo wrote

Don't take their PR at face value. It's all about saving money by not hiring any models, but they can't brag about layoffs so they spin it into a diversity thing. In reality they probably don't give a fuck who's modeling their jeans nowadays and their skin color as long as it sells product.

Also, the shit about white people was from the 1880's. Not really a fair critique, they hire plenty of minorities these days. Racism is bad for business.


7734128 t1_jdqvyvp wrote

Yeah, but that's literally 141 years ago. Not really relevant. Corporate culture rarely survives more than the length of one generation's careers unless family owned.


HistoricallyFunny t1_jdneota wrote

It will soon come to the point where AI generates a 1000 models with clothes and then we pick out what we like and say - thats a nice dress - give me the pattern for it or just program the machine to make it.

After doing that for a few times it will already know what ones we will want.

The entire industry is up for grabs now.


azriel777 t1_jdnn0qo wrote

Do not let the Diversity PR spin fool you. This is about replacing human models with A.I. ones.


niconiconicnic0 t1_jdnolbc wrote

Its genius to couch it in terms of increasing representation. because, i mean, they're not wrong, they are literally increasing 'representation' on their sites of black and brown people, its just that those people won't exist. They're only representations


Honest_Performer2301 t1_jdn3drf wrote

How much does (diversity) need to be increased at this point. Jeeze


94746382926 t1_jdn7rgj wrote

It's PR. They're not gonna brag about how much money they're saving by laying off or not using human models so they spin it another way to seem like they're doing everyone a favor.


BlessedBobo t1_jdmza7q wrote

If your career is basically "I have a pretty face" then boy are you in for a bad time.


gardenina t1_jdnzgj4 wrote

"Increase diversity" AKA "save money"


No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_jdmzvjk wrote

Yes, it's really easy apparently. You can take a basic image and change the ethnicity of the model in a sort of Yahoo Pipes UI. I don't have strong emotions about this. But people will lose jobs or not get hired at least. We should do something out of solidarity even if it doesn't seem a big thing. I mean, before long there will be one guy posing to replace thousands of models. No more actors, no more artists, no more writers. Only Altman and the Microsoft cloud...


L3thargicLarry t1_jdnd95n wrote

yeah idk what y’all are on thinking about this is a cost saving measure. models are payed awfully unless they’re a influencer or celebrity


Paid-Not-Payed-Bot t1_jdnda4r wrote

> models are paid awfully unless


Although payed exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:

  • Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. The deck is yet to be payed.

  • Payed out when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. The rope is payed out! You can pull now.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.

Beep, boop, I'm a bot


niconiconicnic0 t1_jdnpi4l wrote

Exactly, hence being easily replaced as low-hanging fruit for AI, early on. Its all the jobs 'on the margins' (aka marginalized people) that go first. Modeling work is def gig work, and those workers have no voice or ability to push against any wholesale replacement.


94746382926 t1_jdo8q76 wrote

I mean even if they were only making minimum wage it's still a cost saving measure. The cost of generating one of these images is pennies.


L3thargicLarry t1_jdonzov wrote

models are not on salary. they are contractors payed for 2-4 hrs of work, usually on the lowest payment possible


94746382926 t1_jdoroy1 wrote

Regardless of their pay schedule I can almost guarantee an AI generated model is many times cheaper


Paid-Not-Payed-Bot t1_jdoo0mx wrote

> are contractors paid for 2-4


Although payed exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:

  • Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. The deck is yet to be payed.

  • Payed out when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. The rope is payed out! You can pull now.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.

Beep, boop, I'm a bot


existentialblu t1_jdorazp wrote

All I want is a website that shows what particular clothes look like on people of different heights.



JustinianIV t1_jdoxm4u wrote

It’s kinda dystopian to generate these fake “ideal” humans. Not cool imo.


adwrx t1_jdp2uzt wrote

What a fucking joke


Akimbo333 t1_jdq0jpp wrote

Modeling is going to be even more tough. My cousin was pretty attractive back in the mid-2000s, and even she had problems being a model.


theburlysinha t1_jdq5z51 wrote

So there is only 'Instagram' left for models to show their talent. No, I guess it's a serious one for those who are struggling so much to become a fashion model not an "influencer model" by the way.


StopLookListenNow t1_jdqn0it wrote

Let all models be genderless greys, their faces blurred out, unrecognizable. One size, one alien, fits all. All shall wear flowing robes that blur out our body shape. ~s


_Sesire t1_jdr3f5h wrote

Another way to phrase this: @LEVIS is using AI generated people as a way to avoid hiring and paying models who aren’t white


MrNixxxoN t1_jdrf6pz wrote

These people think we're idiots. It is called cost cutting.

Funny coming from Levis, which is a horribly expensive brand.


o0joshua0o t1_jdwunyi wrote

It's extra inclusive when you exclude all the humans!


green_meklar t1_jdn4oof wrote

Yes, that sounds good, we need more blue-skinned elves and transhuman cyborgs in our fashion lineups.

Oh, not like that?


dronegoblin t1_jdnw8g4 wrote

This is not the way to go about increasing diversity. If they want to use AI to let customers see themselves in clothes that would be interesting, but this is just an excuse to not pay for actual diverse models. It is not difficult to do this.


Ok_Season_5325 t1_jdoeock wrote

So long models. Time to finish that degree.


I_Reading_I t1_jdoxftt wrote

They must not have enough representation of eerily symmetrically faced models whose 19 fingers fold into Möbius strips.


lajfat t1_jdp71p0 wrote

How long until a company only shows you models of your ethnicity? (And if you think they don't know your ethnicity, you're probably wrong.)


TinyBurbz t1_jdn1set wrote

Boy I love being right.