It is not shaping up to be a great moment for clothing ads. First there was American Eagle, who sparked controversy over their new campaign with Sydney Sweeney that kinda sorta flirts with Aryanism. And now this week the outrage comes from two ad pages for Guess that feature in the latest issue of Vogue. The images show a woman modeling two looks, and the big brouhaha comes from the tiny-printed credit that eagle eyed viewers brought to our attention: “Produced by Seraphinne Vallora on AI.” Say what now? The ad was “produced” by AI? But wait, it gets better/worse: what exactly in the ad was generated by AI? The model!! WTF?! Though Vogue didn’t create/produce/design the ad, faithful readers — living, sentient humans — are big mad at the fashion bible for even accepting and running it in the issue. Seraphinne Vallora, however, the company that produced the ad on AI, is vigorously defending themselves.
Reactions to the use of an artificial intelligence-generated model has been swift. Social media commentary have been harsh, especially toward Vogue, with calls to discontinue support for the magazine.
“boycott Vogue NOW! they’re pushing out models for AI, devaluing hard work and art of real people,” one user wrote on X. “Had to end the Vogue magazine subscription I’ve had for years because the latest magazine used AI models ??? In Vogue? AI models in Vogue?” another person wrote.
Others shared disappointment that a real model was not used. “so many models wanting to appear in vogue, only for them to end up using AI models,” one person wrote.
“No actual human being has body proportions naturally like this with that symmetrical of a face and that airbrushed of of skin,” YouTuber Isabel Brown said in a reaction video. “There already was major societal backlash to magazines trying to make women look completely unattainable and not realistic whatsoever.”
Guess has yet to post the advertisement on its social media pages. That has not stopped commenters from calling out the clothing company on other posts.
USA TODAY has reached out to Vogue and Guess for comment.
The one company that has come out about the ad is its creator, Seraphinne Vallora. Described as an “AI-driven” marketing agency, the company’s work has also been seen in Elle, Grazia, the Wall Street Journal, FT Magazine and Harper’s Bazaar, according to the company’s website.
“Why can’t engineers, graphic designers, 3D artists, coders, architect -any kind of creative- build beauty too?” the company said in a July 27 Instagram post.
“And funnily enough, we actually hire photographers and models as part of our workflow,” the company added, “we understand people may think AI will be replacing jobs, but in reality, it’s just like any other tool in the design industry and it CREATES jobs, because this images are AI-Driven but made by HUMANS, CREATIVES AND DESIGNERS.”
AI Company: “AI creates jobs!” People: “Great, so this woman is a paid model?” AI Company: “…………..” Excuse me, that’s a gross misrepresentation of Seraphinne Vallora. They haven’t been at a loss for words, they’ve been churning out word salads. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if their statements were “produced” by ChatGPT. It would, after all, be on brand. Take one excerpt from one Instagram post: “This is real work, and it deserves to be recognized as such! It involves complex workflows we built ourselves. It’s architecture, it’s visual direction, it’s fabric studies, lighting tests, real photography references – and yes, AI. But AI is just the tool. The vision and work is human. and yes, the only reason why we achieved this is because we, the founders, are trained architects from London.” They’re architects! They created workflows! So if it’s all a great effort of human labor, what is AI doing in the middle of it? I just don’t understand the need for AI in an ad campaign photoshoot, other than to save a human from generating a creative idea of their own. And sorry, but you can’t boast about AI creating jobs when the model in the picture is not real!! Hiring models for the “workflow” but not for the actual shoot sounds like the only thing being generated by the humans is a completely unnecessary step. Just hire the models for the shoot!
I’m becoming less and less surprised that Anna Wintour is ready to walk out the door now.
Photos via Instagram/Seraphinne Vallora
The AI model resembles Kate Upton!
Shameful!
That AI “model” was generated by using REAL women’s faces and mashing them into one. I definitely see some Doutzen in there!
But Anna is not walking out the door. She’s head of global content which means she had say in this.
Yeah, f*ck that. I already don’t pay any money to these magazines because they photoshop the hell out of women. Now, they won’t even be using real women. The ads are just a start. Slowly, they will be using AI for actual pages too. Unfortunately this is the future. Instead of paying women, they are gonna pay a few companies mostly founded by men to create fake women. I am surprised they even put a note big enough to be readable.
Seems on brand for a magazine that is famous for not paying their actual editorial models.
It’s an interesting marketing strategy to splash your name across something that’s totally fake. This is a high-end version of those “this is what I ordered and this is what I got” fake prom gown sites with the impossibly proportioned fake models wearing impossibly draped fake gowns.
Somehow I prefere an AI Model over a model photoshoped to perfection. At least I know the AI model is not real and nothing anyone can aspire too.
No preasure to look like this with if you only drink enough water, exercise right or go to the right surgeon.
The AI model is obviously fake and therefore removed from beeing attainable.
If you’re using AI in a fashion ad then you’re not representing the actual clothes nor how the actual clothes look on an actual human. Photoshop was already perpetuating false advertising. There’s no excuse for AI here and I’d boycott any company that participated in this.
AI still can’t get hands right. In the zigzag dress photo, the left thumb of the “model” is weirdly long. The split of the thumb from the hand goes back almost to the wrist, and yet even with the thumb bent a little bit AND separated from the fingers, the tip of the thumb comes past the second knuckle of the fingers? Or the photo where the model is seated at the little bistro table—the right hand on the table has a very oddly proportioned ring finger. It looks like two pinkies instead of a pinkie and a ring—and that’s not what the hand looks like in the zigzag dress photo. Maybe someone has hands proportioned like this, but with the airbrush quality of the face and body, it really looks like an AI tell to me.
I have to stop looking because it’s driving me crazy, but the second image (silly me, calling them photos earlier), the watch is on upside down. The winding knob is always at 3 o’clock. If you’ve got your watch on your right wrist and the winding knob is pointing to your fingers instead of your elbow, you’ve got your watch on upside down. Now if you have your watch on your left wrist, the winding knob would point to your fingers, and a lot of right-handed folks (who are the majority) wear their watches on their right, so I understand how the AI trained this way. But still. I presume the watch is an item they’re intending to sell with these images, given its prominent placement. Wouldn’t you want to at least show it being worn properly?
*a lot of right-handed folks wear their watch on their LEFT
Wow, you’re really looking at these, closely!
The “woman” on the right also has a strange-looking lower right leg.
The people who sponsored these ads don’t understand what makes a successful ad campaign. It’s the fact that the models are real people; and that the public knows who they are, at some point, and can fantasize inhabiting their space, in some way. These models have lives outside the ad campaign, which the public can follow and “stan“. Flesh and blood people fantasizing about being other flesh and blood people. That’s how we got the supermodels of the 80s and 90s… the models’ lives were as fabulous and newsworthy as any celebrity’s. Using AI makes the fantasizing that much more inaccessible.
It was only a matter of time. They already altered photos of actual women until they didnt even look human anymore (Ralph Lauren’s preying mantis model comes to mind). They sometimes use young male models instead of women because they dont have breasts or hips. Next they will use robotic models who are literal walking hangers on the runway. I’ve said it before, the fashion industry actually hates women.
Modelling is one of those weird areas where an AI model might actually make a woman feel less worse as a person than a real model would. In that sense, I suppose I could see an AI model possibly taking off.
I don’t think an AI model can replace a bona-fide supermodel like Cindy Crawford or Gisele Bundchen, who I think have legitimate skill at what they do, but I think it could replace Instagran influencer models since they’re not inherently compelling but make you feel FOMO.
It does look like they should have compensated Kate Upton for stealing her face though.
There are a lot of small name or unknown models who get those jobs though. Cindy Crawford didn’t have that name recognition in the industry from day one as well as Gisele. If you don’t give a chance to unknown models, who is gonna be the next Gisele?
This dress is a take-off of the original Barbie swimsuit. Appropriate for an AI model.
so they want people to spend their money to buy clothes that they couldn’t bother to fit to a real live human being to photograph them? The way to sell clothes or a beauty product is to show that product actually being used on a human being, if they have to create the model artificially that artificial model is not wearing the real clothing item/beauty product which should just serve to reinforce the notion that the product is not made for people and should not be used by people