The fashion and marketing industries are in the middle of a digital identity crisis.
As artificial intelligence continues to revolutionise creative production, AI-generated models are being celebrated for their efficiency and cost-effectiveness. But there’s growing unease amongst creatives and the wider public: can simulated diversity replace the real thing?
When I first started to explore the topic for this blog, I was drawing on my own experiences as a marketing manager, not being able to find images that are diverse, and so was toying with the idea of creating my own. The world of luxury fashion is not known for its diversity. Yes, there have been periods where curvier, or older models have shared the catwalks with younger more traditional looking models, but this isn’t widespread, and in fact, seems to be in decline in recent years.
This blog explores the rise of AI-generated diversity in visual campaigns, and I examine whether it supports or undermines genuine representation and unpack the ethical implications of replacing real humans with digitally created avatars.
Is AI Replacing Real Opportunities?
Copy, is a new magazine entirely generated by it’s creator Carl-Axel Wahlstrӧm using Midjourney & Chat GPT.
In an interview with Vogue in 2023, Wahlstrom explains how he makes his imagery by giving prompts to Midjourney and letting the algorhythm create, adding that you need to be very inventive with words, and sometimes the program can misunderstand and throw out something different, making it a great “creative partner”.
“I saw a lot of red warning flags, but I also felt that I was part of something new and revolutionary. I understood quite early that the technique is still very young and that it has a lot of faults, but I had this urge to just get it out, to be able to say I made the world’s—as far as I know—first AI fashion magazine.” (Vogue)
The magazine uses ai generated everything, photoshoots, contributor names, interviews, scenarios – it is very hard to tell they are not human upon first inspection, but then you realise one thing, it is lacking soul.
The argument for Ai generated content is that the freedom and infinite options it gives you – it’s like a cartoon; it’s a lot easier (and cheaper) to make a cartoon hero fly through the sky than a real person.
It cuts out the middleman, shortens design processes, and minimises costs for the brand. It also gives the creator more Control – they can pick how the model will look, their features, face, age more accurately than casting a model or actor in real life.
Take Adidas, and their campaign “Floral”, a spec ad where the models, the clothes and the motion -flowing in perfect timing with the music - are generated using AI programmes. Even though it was a speculative campaign, it received praise for creative vision and visual inclusivity; it wasn't a real campaign, but sparked discussion about future direction.
Whilst the ad is impressive and visually stunning, it too lacks the depth and emotion that only human models and filmmakers can bring. “The future of photography and videography may evolve, but creativity and human insight will always have a significant role.” Rudi Leung, founder and director of Hungry Digital (Marketing Interactive)
But for how long, until the AI programs and algorithms learn and catch up?
In Mango’s “Sunset Dream” campaign, the Spanish fast fashion giant brand aimed to ‘cut costs’ to create surreal, dreamlike imagery filled with diverse, ethereal figures with AI. The campaign wasn’t overtly marketed as AI-generated, but its style and execution reflect the emerging aesthetic of AI fashion visuals: polished and perfected. Some praised the innovation of this campaign, whilst it also faced backlash from fashion journalists and customers alike “Some said yes, arguing it was misleading customers. Others saw it as a cost-cutting move that could threaten jobs in the creative industry. Many worried that the clothing itself was fake, too. The most passionate critics? They called for a boycott of Mango.” (that Tracks Content.com)
Campaigns Without Real Inclusion
For many, this aesthetic approach to diversity feels hollow. The backlash has been swift and sharp, especially when AI-generated diversity is used as a substitute for real hiring. I am constantly seeing negative comments on AI created image and video across social media, with commenters fearing for the jobs of creatives, productions professionals and the models and actors who are being physically plagorised.
Gap, for example, faced criticism for featuring AI-generated models in their social media ads. Viewers quickly pointed out that the racially diverse “models” were fake — leading to accusations that the brand was sidestepping the responsibility of providing real opportunities to marginalized communities.
Fashion commentator SheerLuxe ‘hired’ an AI influencer “Reem” who was presented as a friendly, inclusive digital concierge, sparked so much controversy the brand quickly apologised and withdrew her.
“SheerLuxe did not initially reveal the AI editor's ethnicity, but fans have speculated she is meant to be of Middle Eastern heritage - as Reem is a name of Arabic origin.
Critics have also questioned why the magazine would create a woman of colour using AI, instead of hiring one.
The company have since said that the bot was "created in partnership with an AI imagery creator from the Middle East, and that is reflected in her likeness". (BBC News UK)
Many questioned whether the company had chosen an AI "diversity hire" over employing an actual person of colour. The campaign raised uncomfortable questions: Is it ethical to use synthetic personas to check diversity boxes when real people still struggle to break into these spaces? Why deprive a real human of a job and call it diversity?
Is AI ‘diversity’ taking us further away from real inclusion? Diversity becomes a visual asset to be selected and tweaked, not a personal experience which is unique to each individual.
Using AI creations displaces real work and opportunities. For emerging models, stylists, photographers, and creatives, the growing popularity and use of AI means fewer paid opportunities and a shrinking platform to tell authentic stories.
In conclusion, technology should be used as a tool for empowerment, not diversity washing. We mustn’t let AI reduce identity to an algorithm.
