• Test_Tickles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I am really surprised by this… I’m just stunned… I mean, who knew Vogue even still existed, much less still had subscribers?

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Who the fuck reads Vogue?

    Pretty people in pretty dresses? Lowest common denominator capitalist slop for literally the dumbest people in society.

    Why would they even care?

  • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Why did Vogue credit ai on the page. Literally no one would know if they didn’t. Are they stupid?

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    1 day ago

    I find this as good news. People aren’t willing to accept below a certain standard, which, admittedly is lower than mine, but the standard is still there. This reaction is causing me to regain some faith in humanity.

    • ook@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 day ago

      I am positively surprised people noticed it is AI. I mean, I only see those example images in the article, they didn’t trigger any red flags for me in particular. But maybe there’s more in the actual magazine that does stand out.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        14 hours ago

        It’s noticed as AI because the company told the fans it’s AI.

        If they did a good enough job with the filtering and inpainting and didn’t say anything, they probably would have gotten away with it for a period of time.

        • Devmapall@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          14 hours ago

          It’s hard to tell from the Twitter video but yeah the photos looked good. I wonder how long it would have taken if they didn’t have the AI credit on the image.

          This article is entirely about the reaction on Twitter. I realize that’s kind of how we interact nowadays but also I wonder how the Twitter reaction compares to the base readership. I didn’t see anything concrete in the article but I wasn’t reading too closely.

          On a side note Alex Jones show is entirely him reacting to Twitter now and it’s become even worse than it already was. As I have learned from Knowledge Fight. Only way I keep any tabs on that guy.

  • FellowEnt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 day ago

    I know quite a few fashion brands are quietly switching to AI. As in scrapping whole departments of people who deal with production. Waiting for the push back from consumers but something makes me think this is just going to be the new normal for a while. It’s looking pretty grim for anyone working in the industry.

    • Decq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

      And none of these magazines or whatever will ever lower their price. Major savings, but only for our shareholders!

    • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I remember the same thing when they replaced they dark room, light tables, plate makers, and eventually the printers and went digital. They said the same thing back then. I was one of the last ink and print and manual design and hand drawn artist left in our company.

      But, oh well. Things change. This is what computers do.

      From what I gather during the discussion about Vogue, is people are realizing that AI isn’t the problem, it is the fact that there aren’t even any places that actually sell anything in person anymore. It either cheap walmart/target garbage, or you have to try things on via delivery. Vogue going AI means those patterns, textures, and designs don’t even really exist. So whats to even try on anymore?

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I think this confusion is proving the pointlessness of mags like Vogue and models in general. Why do models exist? They certainly weren’t there to impose their overly high unrealistic body standards for women.

        Especially with all of the airbrushing and photoshopping going on. Have you seen videos of digital editors working off of the source material? They fuck around with a LOT of the details, even to the point of changing arm/leg length. It doesn’t seem like much of a leap to go to AI at this point. Even if they didn’t, they would just use AI tools within Photoshop to almost do the same thing.

        Models only exist for advertising. That’s it. I don’t understand why we would treat advertisers as some protected class. This is just the inevitable fate of an already pointless industry.

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      24 hours ago

      It’s authentic human slop.

      They’re essentially describing Twitter drama as if it were news. How many people canceled (doesn’t say)? Has Vogue made a statement (no idea)?

      It’s not a story, it’s a person describing what they were scrolling while they were on the toilet as if it were news.

        • Lemminary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          14 hours ago

          I was thinking of the digital artists behind the production, mostly because I recently dated a photographer.

          • eRac@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            All we know is a disclaimer on each photo that AI tech was used. These could be real photos on blank backgrounds with the background generated and composited later. They could be photos of the garments on mannequins with the whole person being generated. They could be face replacements so that future models can’t get famous and demand more money.

            No matter what, these still took a lot of editing to get to print. They still needed at least one photo of the garments.

            • Lemminary@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Yeah, I know how this process works, but there’s no denying a lot of people are being taken out of their jobs with this one simple trick. The job that used to take three professionals can now be done by one person at a fraction of the cost with a phone camera. You don’t even need a professional photo of the garments or a model to exist to make it work if you’re good at editing and trivial prompting. Here’s a website that offers to cut costs for this entire process by 90%.