Are AI Generated Women the Future of Fashion - Or a Threat to Gender Equality?
A new petition argues against the use of AI generated models in fashion - but where does the hype end and they truth begin?
A model stares out of an Instagram page, vibrant pink hair swept casually to one side, grey hooded sweatshirt cut off at the shoulders, her skin almost impossibly smooth. Amid a scrolling sea of stylized faces, filters and touch-ups you would no reason to question that the model is AI generated. Aitana Lopez can look more real, more casual than many of the other faces on Instagram.
Of course, she is not real in any physical sense, created instead by a Spanish modelling agency this digital model now earns thousands per month in advertising revenue. Is this the new future of digital marketing?
Existential threat to the modelling industry
The threat which AI poses for jobs reaches many industries, and now includes the world of fashion. As a reaction a recent petition initiated by a number of Australians working in the modelling industry, has been launched calling for AI regulation in the fashion modelling industry.
The petition claims that AI will lead to countless job loses in the industry, and makes many strong claims. With over 6.000 signatures (at time of writing) I wanted to look at the reliability of the arguments it presents. With the amount of hype and doom saying around AI – and the genuine threats it poses, it is important to find out what the legitimate arguments are.
The full petition is here: AI will lead to countless job losses, we need regulation before it is too late. I have taken snippets which I will refer to throughout. The authors are writing from their perspective advocating for models rights.1 I will admit my personal bias here as a male with limited to no direct experience in the fashion world.
The Background
Yes, AI is being used to create synthetic images of women to pose as models for advertising. It is not clear the extent of this issue as of yet as there does not seem to be any reliable source of data on it. The petition cites some anecdotal stories about fewer jobs in the industry.
The New World of AI in Fashion
The company Lalaland.ai already offers generative AI -models for companies to use to include in campaigns, the site offers the options to create and style an AI generated model. Levi's have reportedly been experimented with it.
Companies like Artisse.ai offer a the ability to have a virtual changing-room, where different garments can be superimposed. The argument in this case is that this use of AI is not to take models jobs, but rather to "augment" them.
A model can have a photoshoot and then these images can be used to sell a number of products. While this is augmenting work, it does also mean that the model losing out on work. Instead of posing for 5 shoots, they might only have to pose for 1.
On the reverse, a model can have 5 shoots, and have 1 garment imposed
Beyond augmentation, AI has also been used to create entirely new models. As mentioned Aitana López is an AI-generated model earning thousands on Instagram created by a Spanish modelling agency. The computer generated Instagram model Miquela has 2.6 million followers and has been used in numerous advertising campaigns. The replacement of fashion models by AI generated models is the main concern of the petition.
The scale of AI generated Images
These statistics are not cited, but appear to come from these statistics also reported here.
While 15 billion is the total estimated number of text-to-image generations (think Midjourney or DALL-E), it is misleading to say that all 15 billion are circulating social media and e-commerce. Though, admittedly that number is far more difficult to estimate.
We should also put this into perspective, these statistics point out that the number of images all time posted to Instagram is 50 billion, whereas Facebook is 1.5 Trillion (with a T!), the Shutterstock library on the other hand reportedly has 386 Million. So, AI generated images have already overtaken Shutterstock, and are on track to over take Instagram. It should be noted how difficult it is to definitively estimate this number, and moreover estimate the actual useable images people have generated.
Gender Dynamics in AI
This paragraph brings in the first argument, which will be returned to further down. Firstly is the claim that AI is driven by men, secondly is the claim that AI generated photography will cause loss in wages and loss of revenue from the creative industry. These appear to be separate arguments, which we will look at further down.
This section sets the background. Personally, I agree that there is utility in creative arts, and that it should be a viable and supported industry. Each of the authors in their own way have been working to help create a fashion industry, or creative industry which reflects diversity. This is an ongoing battle, and while the article points out that things have come a long way in the past 20 years, it is a battle that is by no means won.
Creative Arts and Diversity
A study from Screen Australia found that in 2023 Anglo-Celtic faces made up 71% of TV characters on Australian TV dramas, this was down from 82% in 2016. The number of disabled characters in 2023 was 6.6% (up from 3.6% in 2016) despite making up 18% of the population. While the trends are positive, they are by no means completely representative of our society.Â
The fashion industry fairs distinctively worse. Reports have found there is still a lack of size representation in fashion, Vogue Business estimated that Plus-size representation made up 0.9% of the Spring-Summer 2024 Vogue runway, with 3.9% being Mid-Size. The previous Autumn Winter 2023 Vogue Runway had just 0.6% plus size models.
The issue of inclusivity or body image is not one that is confined to AI. There is a wider creative industry inclusivity issue at play. In fact, this skinny-mostly-anglo bias leads directly into the training data of AI. AI and AI images reflect what is already published online. If AI presents images idealised or unrealistic images of women, it could be because they are the most common images published by media and fashion brands.
The Concern for Marginalized Models
There is I feel a more pertinent argument here, which is that AI will make the problem of diversity worse. The argument is that it will be even harder for marginalised models to find work, because an AI can be trained to create synthetic images of them. This does appear to be a legitimate concern for jobs.
As previously mentioned Lalaland.ai already offers customised models, from hair style, to body shape and size, skin colour and more, "to reflect the audiences you want to reach". The page also states that it is "Inspired by real people, generated with AI."
The petition argues that there is a human rights issue at stake, but it is not clear what the definition of human rights is being used here.
The petition then describes the increase in eating disorders, it is not clear what this has to do with AI. The Centre for Women’s Health have put the cause of the increase down to representations on social media. While eating disorders are a problem, it is not clear the argument for how AI will affect it. It is difficult to say that trying to live up to the representation of an AI generated model will have a greater impact than trying to live up to the image of a runway or Instagram model.
Gender Debate in AI Ownership and Control
We return to the arguments which were initially raised. Firstly, AI is owned and controlled by men and as such has been designed as a fetishised tool for men. Secondly, that it threatens an industry dominated by women. I will again admit my bias here as a man sitting in a room with my computer (no gaming chair though).
I think there is a distinction to be made between AI for commercial purposes in the fashion industry, as a cost saving tool (to use instead of human models) and AI as a fetish tool (to create idealised images, or synthetic porn for example).
Male dominance in AI and in Fashion
The claim that AI is owned and trained prominently by men is a difficult statement, it is not clear if this means the CEOs of AI companies are predominantly men or those designing it are men. However, the underrepresentation of women in the AI sector is evident.
A 2020 World Economic Forum report on gender equality found that 26% of the global AI workforce were women. We should be working to change this, encouraging and supporting women to work in AI. This also means challenging stereotypes. By dividing the AI debate along gender lines, and reinforcing the idea that AI is for men, there is risk of further increasing this divide. Young women should be encouraged to go into this world to change it from the inside. Pitting AI as a women vs men debate is not helpful.
The Gender Gap in Fashion
The next argument focuses on a statement of fact, namely that the fashion modelling industry is 90% a women's industry. It is not clear exactly where this figure has come from, but statistics do slant toward women in the industry. The Australian Fashion Council estimates that 77% of the workforce in the fashion industry is female.
While this is the case, the concentration of power shifts disproportionately toward men as we go up the chain. One report pointing out that in 2022 almost 70% of incoming fashion brand CEOs were men. Others found that only 26% of women held fashion board seats, and only 12.5% of fashion CEOs are women.
While we can argue that AI is controlled by men, there is also an argument that fashion is also controlled predominantly by men. If the numbers are correct, then the proportion of women working in AI is the same as women who hold board seats on fashion brands (26%).
The Commercial Debate AI Models Over Human Models
This bring us to what I consider to be a commercial argument. The initiative to replace fashion models with AI models will be an industry decision. Ultimately this will be a decision to use a tool which reduces costs, at the expense of jobs. I would argue that this decision is more likely to come from a marketing or sales team.
If there is an increase in the AI fashion models, then this it is not only a technology problem, but it is an existential problem for the fashion industry itself. It will be company decisions (albeit one made by decidedly male fashion boards). Ultimately, this decision will impact those further downstream, the models, photographers, stylists etc.
Fetishizing Women in Digital Imagery
The second part of the argument is that it is created by men to fetishize women. The author points out that initial AI versions of herself seem to be unrealistic or hyper-sexualised. This is a concern for the representation of women through AI, rather than a commercial concern.
The use of AI generated models for male pleasure is also one that goes beyond fashion, I think it is its own distinct argument. There has been similar work critiquing the production of female sex robots. One prominent argument is that the proliferation of sex robots is a threat to gender equality2.
AI, Fantasy, and Real-World Consequences
One question to consider is whether the creation of synthetic images of women is in the realm of fantasy, separate from the 'real' world and therefore unproblematic? Or will this feed into having consequences for equality in society.
If men are able to create and interact with synthetic women, including AI fashion models, then it threatens the balance of power between genders. Moreover, it excludes women from being recognised as human, reducing them to technological objects. The Campaign Against Sex Robots, promotes an alternative vision of technology where women and girls are centered and valued. The development of AI images, and further the creation of AI bots for relationships, poses similar pressing ethical issues.
The Ripple Effect of AI on Modeling Jobs
This brings us to the most salient part of the argument. And one I think succeeds,
Models on a shoot employ 5 more people
AI threatens the work of a model
Therefore Ai threatens the work of 5 more people.
This argument holds up fairly well and points to the issue in the industry, namely that brands are not required to disclose the use of AI models. This does feel like an ethical issue within the industry.
Tech vs. Fashion Industry Regulations
While the piece urges legislation, it is not clear what this legislation should focus on. Should it focus on the tech industry? Or the fashion industry specifically? We have seen with the SAG-AFTRA strike that creatives have taken action against an industry to ensure protection against the threat of AI. Will this also happen for fashion and advertising?Â
While the petition goes onto give further background, I feel that the arguments presented so far are the most relevant.
Concluding Thoughts: Navigating the AI Challenge in Fashion
My general conclusions are that:
The generation of female images for modelling is a commercial threat for jobs, this is an issue for the fashion industry
There is a societal threat for the view of women broadly: this is an issue for the tech industry
Framing the AI debate as men vs women is not helpful.
The problem faced by the industry is much broader than just a technical one, now that agencies and brands have realised how easy it is to use AI, it might already be too late.
A brief note on the authors: Chelsea Bonner is a former model, who founded BELLA Models in 2002, an agency focused on health and changing the perception of size and beauty. Robyn Lawley is Australian model, turned author who writes about body image among other things. Tracy Spicer (I remember as presenting Channel 10 News in the early 2000's) is an award winning journalist and social justice advocate.
See Richardson K (2015) The asymmetrical 'relationship': parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots, ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society Volume 45 Issue 3, September 2015 pp 290–293. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2874239.2874281
One of the greatest AI threats to creative industries does appear to be this cutting out of so many middle-operators that contribute to films, music, fashion etc. When you can punch in a prompt like "an emotional moving score in the style of Hans Zimmer" and get a result that's 80% Hans Zimmer, that's going to be good enough. While it's understandable that the fashion workforce are concerned with these AI developments, do consumers care? If people are going to be happy with their garment photos on a website or even a Star Wars film being created by prompts and software then the creative industries might be doomed. Even today, reading about the new George Carlin special. This will be a good test of whether audiences care more about what their entertainment is than where it has come from and how it was made. This just seems like the inevitable outcome of a society of wanton consumption.