Seems reasonable. I assume the future version of this is generating a model based on the user - either client side with a local model or maybe you have a vector that your browser shares that represents what you want to look like and websites or ads can incorporate your (preferred) appearance into their image generations.
> Well unless Levi's also makes the pants that the AI generates it's just horseshit isn't it?
That's an excellent point. While a human model may not "look like you," at least he's wearing an instance of the actual product you're going to buy. Who knows how what the AI model is shown to be "wearing" relates to that.
That's a fun idea, but given what we know about the advertising industry and late capitalism, it's more likely that they'll collect our appearance without our knowledge or consent, and use it to make really ugly caricatures of us that emphasize our features of greatest sensitivity and insecurity, to make us feel bad about ourselves and feel like we need to buy something to compensate for our shortcomings.
"Nice nose, Pinnochio, now buy some pants you ugly sack of shit!"
I wonder if this means they will have an equal number of all permutations of possible person? Or if it just means it’ll be representative of society’s mix (in the environment where they are selling the product)?
Someone needs to say it, but Levi's AI/ML is a total wreck. It's like the worst of process heavy design and development staffed almost entirely by juniors, surprisingly hard to find senior engineers, their model seems to be junior engineers reporting to senior (but non-technical) managers. Does no one stay there?
And let's not get started on their Google chatbot which they spent millions on (outsourced development, despite their alleged internal competency) and completely failed at being able to recommend... denim jackets.
That being the case, this news comes as almost no surprise.
I appreciate how much they seem to pay out to R&D but I use them as an example of where build vs buy falls down.
Been going to the site for a long time. I only buy 501 jeans and the occasional jacket. The default sort on their product detail page is always "recommended", and it never recommends 501s.
And that chat bot was an absolute joke. I used screen shots of it to rant about AI years ago. Still get retailers with a fraction of Levi's budget asking about chat bots on RFPs though.
> We believe our models should reflect our consumers, which is why we’re continuing to diversify our human models in terms of size and body type, age and skin color
Does this mean that as a consumer I should see a diverse set of models or only see models reflecting my own traits? Is there a balance to strike between personalization and diversity, or is that a false dichotomy?
It could just as easily mean that they will start using sweatshop workers to model their clothes, then use AI to give them any skin color or body shape in the photos.
The point of a model putting on the clothes is being able to see the cut of it. What's the point of seeing it on someone my shape or size or skin tone if it's merely the AI's guess at how it would look?
If the AI model’s guess is good, and it can generate a model that is more similar to you than the models they have at the studio that day, the value prop seems obvious
> Alternate title: Levi’s to replace minorities with computer-generated pictures.
To be fair, that wouldn’t increase (even apparent) diversity. They are replacing non-minorities with computer-generated pictures that look like minorities.
This is actually a tiny step up from what I thought they were doing, which was to change the race of existing models. But this is still terrible and useless.
Not unlike the method of Jussie Smollett, who was so unsatisfied with the diversity in his local hate community and was forced to generate new criminals to meet his specifications.
With browser fingerprinting and the wealth of individualized data on users available to 'advertisers', why not auto-generate a model of me wearing the clothes that they know to be my taste doing activities they know I enjoy? It would be good for me because I can just screen shot those images and post them to my social media -- saving the hassle of having to wear clothes and do things.
35 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 86.0 ms ] threadThat's an excellent point. While a human model may not "look like you," at least he's wearing an instance of the actual product you're going to buy. Who knows how what the AI model is shown to be "wearing" relates to that.
"Nice nose, Pinnochio, now buy some pants you ugly sack of shit!"
And let's not get started on their Google chatbot which they spent millions on (outsourced development, despite their alleged internal competency) and completely failed at being able to recommend... denim jackets.
That being the case, this news comes as almost no surprise.
Been going to the site for a long time. I only buy 501 jeans and the occasional jacket. The default sort on their product detail page is always "recommended", and it never recommends 501s.
And that chat bot was an absolute joke. I used screen shots of it to rant about AI years ago. Still get retailers with a fraction of Levi's budget asking about chat bots on RFPs though.
Does this mean that as a consumer I should see a diverse set of models or only see models reflecting my own traits? Is there a balance to strike between personalization and diversity, or is that a false dichotomy?
Levi's still has a way to go with eliminating fat-shaming.
Seems tone deaf to me.
Also that's only half the point. The other half is manufacturing desire, showing beautiful people in the product
To be fair, that wouldn’t increase (even apparent) diversity. They are replacing non-minorities with computer-generated pictures that look like minorities.
(I assume human models get paid??)