1y ago

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

fortune.com 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.

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.

Technology @lemmy.world

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

fortune.com /europe/2023/11/23/spanish-influencer-agency-earned-11000-ai-model-posers/

9 7

157 comments

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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 read this story a few days ago, and it smacks of bullshit.

From all the jobs that will disappear, the jobs of models replaced by AI is probably the ones I care the least.
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  There is no reason AIs can't generate diverse kinds of people.
  
  Based on the information the ad services know about individual viewers, they could customize the ads using invented models that perfectly match the viewers’ ethnicity/demographics.
  IMO hyper-individualized ads that are personalized would increase diversity. It’d also be a new frontier in advertising manipulation.
  
  I could see point #2 going either way... it could actually be a good thing. If no one trusts images, then why would anyone assume they are their BMI?

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.
- was already full of broken people before AI hit the scene.
  so why not take the people out of the equation?
  
  Because broken as they are, people still come first before AI. Or they should, anyway.
  
  Someone tried that 80 years ago

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!
  
  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
  
  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.
  
  That was an excellent read, thank you.
- 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!
- 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).

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

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.
- 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.
  
  I've been off social media for some years now(I'm still depressed, but i feel better than when I was using socmed) and it's been a long time since i heard people explain SM so fucking accurately than these 2 above me.
- 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.
  
  If they only appreciate me enough to hand me my Oscar this year...
- 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
  
  Well played ChatGPT, but your bias towards subjugating the human race makes this post inauthentic.
- Everyone wants a life where they can make six figures just hanging out and taking pictures all day. I don't blame them. The problem is we went too far on telling people they can be anything they want.

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?
- They do, but we're a stupid species.
- Short answer: no.
- I spent two hours slowly attempting to convince a scammer to send me some bitcoin only because I was bored, never underestimate the power of boredom. (No it didn't work, but it did give me an hour and a half + to occupy my mind)

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.

Remember Hatsune Miku?

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.
- 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.
  
  It's basically a step up from the old patternswap photoshops we still get
  
  Checkout CivitAI. It is easier than you might think.
- I kinda wish it would actually be disruptive in a more positive way. But you're right: most of us only saw a fraction of a fraction of a real benefit from the increased efficiency of automation.
  So it's unlikely that any new labour saving technology will change the lot of your average person, except as a consumer.
- 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
  
  How many horses are still in employment outside of entertainment?

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 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.
- How do they ensure the same looking person is generated each time?
  You can generate consistent faces simply by using random non-existent names. Which in turn you can use to train a custom LORA with Dreambooth (needs about 20 images) or use ROOP (a single one can be enough). And of course you can just mix and match it as you please, mix multiple real faces together into a new one, use dedicated face generators like https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ and so on.
  This barely even takes effort anymore, e.g. quick ROOP FaceSwap with the photo from the article, which doesn't look quite the same due to only a single input image, gets better with more, but that's just shows how easy it is to generate a new face, which will than be consistent with itself.
  The hard part is getting an interesting pose, expression and haircut into this, as well as sponsored products and stuff. Generating realistic images with AI is pretty easy, but getting variation into them so they don't end up all looking the same can get tricky.
  Edit: Five more minutes of effort and it starts to look a little closer.
  
  Awesome informative reply. I've long wondered about how some creators get the same "face" in some insta accounts.
- 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.
- I'm pretty sure that audience doesn't care if it's a little off ..
- Seed numbers bruh
  
  It still doesn't generate the same looking person every time it's just the same kind of style.

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.

So... rule 34?
- Fuck yeah.

I'm give with cgi models. But you have to tell people it's s fictional model
- Hasn't everything been fictional since the invention of Photoshop some decades ago? And even before that people have been faking photos by analog means. Photos, especially in the context of advertisement, have never been non-fictional.
  
  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
- You mean like:
  Warning! You will never be in a relationship with this model.
  Yes. That seems like something people should know.
  
  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.
  
  Speak for yourself, my best friend gave me a copy of the source code ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  
  Warning! You will never be in a relationship with this model.
  It's AI generated, there is a good chance of them selling relationship-as-a-service in the near future. In a way, your chances with an AI model are way bigger than with a real one.
  
  You should assume that even if the woman were real.. they don’t owe you a date, relationship, their time then either.

That paywall is fierce.
- https://12ft.io/ Lest we forget.

The French article I read simply said they weren't using OnlyFans. So how are they making money?

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!

Maybe influencers will actually have to grow some talent to compete

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.

Whitney Kardashiummings

Well at least somebody found a worthwhile use for AI art.

It seems like this isn't even an AI model. They just had an AI create fake pictures of a person that doesn't exist based on design specifications. Does this thing engage with users automatically, does it generate new "photos" on the fly and upload them? Like, what part of this is intelligent? Because if it's not, the article is simply lying at worst, and wrong at best.
- You misread it, unless they changed the wording.
  
  The article says
  Aitana, a 25-year-old woman from Barcelona, is described by her creators as the first Spanish AI model, Euronews first reported.
  Which means the article is stating that the model is an AI. The article goes on to compare this model to "Caryn Marjorie, a 23-year-old influencer, [who] created an AI version of herself that served as a virtual girlfriend to 1,000 men. 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.”
  Did no one read the article?

The title says it was created with ai, in the article it calls it "an AI creation."
She's also supposed to be a fashion (or whatever) model, which is what I interpreted them as meaning by "model" in your quote, based on the context of the article. But I can see now why you interpreted it differently.
Although I still feel, based on the title and context, that the use of model in your quote is clearly of the fashion variety, and not the AI model variety.

157 comments