AIBU to be worried about this? Guess campaign uses AI models

Expectation v Reality, this is an longstanding advertising double standard. Advertised burger v real product.

Isn’t the main concern that we can’t see how the clothes look on a real human? As AI must be just estimating what the item would look like on, so it would make me have less trust in a brand using this as it may not show how low cut/short an item really is on once you factor in real boobs/thighs for example?

Not especially important, no. Which is just as well with my appearance.

Off the top of my head, jobs I can think of could be;

Coder/Data Professional
Solicitor
Teacher
Engineer
Physiotherapist
Dog trainer
Vet
Dentist
Dental Nurse
Doctor
Nurse
Police Officer
Zookeeper
Civil Servant
Chef
Mechanic
Air traffic controller
HGV driver
Train Driver
Firefighter
Paramedic
Accountant/Auditor
Bookkeeper
Electrician
Plumber
Builder
Architect
Landscape Gardener
Conservation
Social Worker

Some of those require higher academic ability than others, some require higher levels of spatial reasoning than others, but none of them have physical perfection, attractiveness or the ability to be one of the best in world at something in order to do it.

Sports star - physically perfect and exceptional talent. Career lasts only a few years.

Are sports stars physically perfect? Obviously they are fit & strong but it doesn't mean they have great proportions etc. Same for actors. Nobody is actually perfect even the most beautiful models.

I don’t see the appeal of looking at AI versions of things whether it’s models or art.

I get it’s much cheaper and easier but seems empty.

I guess so. But to know something's fully fake make me mentally class it as a cartoon or something. It doesn't register to me as a beauty standard. And I like real looking features on people, with flaws and uniqueness. So I wouldn't find an image like that attractive. Just very bland. Like they may as well just use a manequin.

@NeverDropYourMooncup

You've picked roles that are out of reach for pretty much 99+% of the population and are mostly dependent upon physical perfection/attractiveness.

Looks seem incredibly important to you which is my point. You seem to believe that people can only achieve something of worth if they're attractive. My point was that there are more important things you can aspire to be than attractive. You are welcome to add your own aspirations for girls.

Like so much of AI this seems the death of any variety and creativity. The AI models look very bland and blank faced. Some of the most famous models over the years have tended to be have much more quirky features. However, I’m not sure this is any worse for beauty standards than the heavy photoshopping that every fashion image has these days.

Sports star - physically perfect and exceptional talent. Career lasts only a few years.
Politician - physically attractive is far more likely to be successful.
Activist - physically attractive is far more likely to gain attention in the media.
Artist - needs exceptional talent.
Singer - needs exceptional talent and very dependent upon physical attractiveness.
Actor - physically perfect, attractive and some talent required. Exceptional talent might mean some additional career opportunities past 34, being an international star may mean the occasional incredibly beautiful and physically perfect actor is able to continue without having to go down the cosmetic surgery route, but in all likelihood will be largely out of work once somebody younger comes along.
Musician - needs exceptional talent and physical attractiveness important for anything other than an anonymous accompanist/member of orchestra.
Scientist - needs exceptional intellect.

You've picked roles that are out of reach for pretty much 99+% of the population and are mostly dependent upon physical perfection/attractiveness.

So Guess has gone for slug eyebrows and the trout pout. There is a demogtraphic that will identify with this look, but I would suggest that the sales figures will reveal whether the campaign has been successful or not.

@GaspingGekko exactly & the same model will be tweaked so her body parts & features are different for each photo. It won't even be obtainable by surgery tbh.

I think this is a key issue for me. AI will allow picking and choosing of the 'best' body parts. Instead of using curvier models who are curvy all over, or slim models who are slim all over so that different women can see themselves represented, AI will allow companies to stick together an absolutely unattainable without surgery frankenwoman. Big boobs, curvey hips, flat stomach, tones arms, slender legs.

Good thing I didn't blame girls.

Because society does? Their employers do. The voters do. Their families do. Enough of the faux surprise. Come on! Girls are rated snd faulted for lack of beauty from birth—and even before birth when you think of how dating and pregnancy are handled.

Isn’t the issue unattainable beauty standards, seeping unconsciously into people’s realities rather than feeling threatened by an image per se?

As an image itself I’m not too worried about it’s effect as, currently anyway, every AI rendition I’ve seen looks like the same dull, doll-like person - it’s really obvious and makes the Guess campaign just look cheap.

I’d be more worried about who in the industry it could put out of work in the long term, as it gets more sophisticated and harder to tell if it’s fake.

If anything it's more honest admitting the whole model is totally fabricated. Rather than using real people and grossly distorting their bodies and features using Photoshop and editing and filters.

I'd feel less insecure knowing that it's not even remotely real and isn't meant to be. So of course a person would never look that way. It would be like being jealous of a robot or a cartoon.

I think the vast majority or women and girls aren’t affected by this kind of thing.

That would be great but I'm not sure I believe it. I'm older so am not that bothered but a lot of my younger colleagues see fillers and botox as normal and filter their photos so they look like insta clones. I don't think it's healthy.

You can’t lay this at the door of the girls and blame them for their concerns that they must look good - it’s not their fault. Women are still socialised by society from an early age to look pretty and submit to men, who are socialised as more important and able to be taken seriously whether they look good or not.

An experiment was done which showed that girls as young as 7 presume that boys their age are cleverer than them. Why do you suppose that is?

I love that this AI model is a full bodied healthy looking woman..

But it's unrealistic, she is a healthy shape but her jawline, arms etc belong to a much slimmer body shape.

In one way it makes sense since campaigns are so heavily airbrushed they don't resemble the model of actress used really.

However it will create even more unrealistic "body goals".
Also what I loved about Kate Moss for example is her personality comes through in photos & small imperfections can make a face more attractive imo.

This. I grew up in the Twiggy era. I was NOT twig-like!

It genuinely never bothered me. I was curvy and never lacked for boyfriends.

I think the vast majority or women and girls aren’t affected by this kind of thing. Looking through photos that my 2 DILs post up on FB about their shenanigans almost all the women in their (very large) friendship group are plus size, and all have long term boyfriends/husbands, which totally belies the theory that men only want skinny women.

Of course there will be girls and women who will be affected, but those who are have deeper issues of lack of self esteem than is caused by photos in magazines.

It doesn't help that so many of them have been splashed across their parent's social media since they were a mere scan photo.

The same parents who'll be trying to convince them that looks don't matter.