Does this look like a real woman? AI Vogue model raises concerns about beauty standards
In August's print edition of Vogue, a Guess advert features a flawless blonde model showing off a striped maxi dress and a floral playsuit from the brand's summer collection.
In small print in one corner, the ad reveals that she was created using AI.
While Vogue says the AI model was not an editorial decision, it is the first time an AI-generated person has featured in the magazine.
The advert has been met with controversy and raises questions about what this means for real models who have fought for greater diversity, and for consumers - particularly young people - already struggling with unrealistic beauty standards.
Seraphinne Vallora is the company behind Guess's controversial advert.
Its founders, Valentina Gonzalez and Andreea Petrescu, tell the BBC they were approached by Guess's co-founder, Paul Marciano, on Instagram and were asked to create an AI model as part of the brand's summer campaign.
"We created 10 draft models for him and he selected one brunette woman and one blonde that we went ahead and developed further," Gonzalez says.
She explains there's often a misconception that AI image generation is simple, saying it is actually a complex process.
The company has five employees who create AI models, and it can take up to a month from idea inception to the completed product. The pair say they charge anywhere up to low six figures for a client like Guess.
'Disheartening'
But Felicity Hayward, a plus-size model who has been in the industry for more than a decade, says using AI models in fashion campaigns "feels lazy and cheap".
"Either Guess is doing this to create a talking point and get free publicity or they want to cut costs and don't think about the implications of that."
She describes Vogue's decision to include the advert as "very disheartening and quite scary", and worries it could undermine years of work towards more diversity in the industry.
The fashion world was making real progress to be more inclusive in the 2010s - the decade saw Valentina Sampaio become the first openly trans model to walk for Victoria's Secret, Halima Aden was the first hijab-wearing model in global campaigns, and brands like Savage x Fenty featured plus-size models on the runway.
But in recent years, Hayward believes, the industry has slipped backwards because "these people are just not getting booked any more".
And the use of AI models is "another kick in the teeth, and one that will disproportionately affect plus-size models", she warns.
Gonzalez and Petrescu are adamant they don't reinforce narrow beauty standards.
"We don't create unattainable looks - actually the AI model for Guess looks quite realistic," Petrescu says. "Ultimately, all adverts are created to look perfect and usually have supermodels in, so what we are doing is no different."
The pair admit the AI images on their company's Instagram page are lacking in diversity and promote unrealistic beauty standards. They say they have tried to be more inclusive, but it's the users who don't engage much with those posts.
"We've posted AI images of women with different skin tones, but people do not respond to them - we don't get any traction or likes," Gonzalez tells the BBC.
"At the end of the day, we are a business and use images on Instagram that will create a conversation and bring us clients."
The company is yet to experiment with creating plus-size women, claiming "the technology is not advanced enough for that".
An ad campaign by Dove in 2024 was designed to highlight the biases in AI. In the advert, an image generator is asked to create the most beautiful woman in the world and produces virtually indistinguishable women who are young, thin and white, with blonde hair and blue eyes. The images generated look similar to the Guess AI model.
Hayward worries that seeing these unattainable images could have an impact on people's mental health and negatively affect their body image.
Concern around unrealistic beauty standards and the damaging effects they can have is nothing new. But unlike traditional airbrushing, which at least began with a real person, these AI models are digitally created to look perfect, free from human flaws, inconsistencies or uniqueness.
While some high-profile figures such as Ashley Graham, Jameela Jamil and Bella Thorne have spoken out against image editing and refuse to have their pictures Photoshopped, the use of AI sidesteps such conversations entirely.
Vogue's decision to include an AI-generated advert has caused a stir on social media, with one user on X writing: "Wow! As if the beauty expectations weren't unrealistic enough, here comes AI to make them impossible. Even models can't compete."
Vanessa Longley, CEO of eating disorder charity Beat, tells the BBC the advert is "worrying".
"If people are exposed to images of unrealistic bodies, it can affect their thoughts about their own body, and poor body image increases the risk of developing an eating disorder," she says.
'Exceptionally problematic'
Adding to the issue is the lack of transparency - it is not a legal requirement to label AI-generated content in the UK.
While Guess labelled its advert as AI-generated, the disclaimer is small and subtle. Readers may overlook it and, at a glance, the image appears entirely lifelike.
Sinead Bovell, a former model and now tech entrepreneur, wrote an article for Vogue five years ago about the risks of AI replacing modelling.
She tells the BBC that not labelling AI content clearly is "exceptionally problematic" because it could have a detrimental impact on people's mental health.
"Beauty standards are already being influenced by AI. There are young girls getting plastic surgery to look like a face in a filter – and now we see people who are entirely artificial," she says.
Aside from the impact AI models could have on a consumer, especially if unlabelled, what about the impact of this technology on those working in the fashion industry?
Sara Ziff is a former model and founder of Model Alliance, an organisation that aims to advance workers' rights in the fashion industry.
She says Guess's AI campaign is "less about innovation and more about desperation and need to cut costs".
More broadly, the former model thinks AI in the fashion industry is not inherently exploitative, but can often come at the expense of the people who bring it to life because there are many more staff involved in a photoshoot than just the model and the photographer.
"AI can positively impact the industry, but there need to be meaningful protections for workers," she explains.
'Supplement not replace'
Seraphinne Vallora rejects the notion that it is putting people out of work, and says its pioneering technology "is supplementary and not meant to replace models".
"We're offering companies another choice in how they market a product," Petrescu explains.
The pair add that they have created jobs with their company, and part of the process of creating AI models requires them to hire a real model and photographer to see how the product looks on a person in real life.
However, its website lists one of the benefits of working with them as being cost-efficient because it "eliminates the need for expensive set-ups, MUA artists, venue rentals, stage setting, photographers, travel expenses, hiring models".
Vogue has come under fire for including the advert in its print edition, with one person on X saying the fashion magazine had "lost credibility".
Bovell says the magazine is "seen as the supreme court of the fashion industry", so allowing the AI advert to run means they are "in some way ruling it as acceptable".
The BBC approached Vogue and Guess for comment. Vogue said it was an advert, not an editorial decision, but declined to respond further.
So, what does the future of the modelling industry look like?
Gonzalez and Petrescu believe that as their technology improves, they will be even more in demand by brands looking to do things differently.
Bovell thinks there will be more AI-generated models in the future, but "we aren't headed to a future where every model is created by AI".
She sees positives in the development of AI in the industry - predicting that anybody could "start to see ourselves as the fashion models" because we will be able to create a personal AI avatar to see how clothes look and fit.
However, she adds that we may get to the stage of "society opting out, and not being interested in AI models because it's so unattainable and we know it's not real".
More Weekend Picks
The procedures driving UK's cosmetic surgery rise
Women share their bittersweet experience after taking weight-loss drugs
Can LED face masks transform your skin? Here's what the experts say
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Firefly Aerospace to price US IPO as it sets sights on a positive liftoff
By Pritam Biswas and Arasu Kannagi Basil (Reuters) -Northrop Grumman-backed Firefly Aerospace, the buzzy space technology startup that put a lander on the moon, is set to price its U.S. IPO later on Wednesday. In a nascent but rapidly growing commercial space industry, Firefly's IPO has attracted investor attention because it successfully landed its uncrewed Blue Ghost spacecraft on the moon in its first attempt in March. Cedar Park, Texas-based Firefly Aerospace is set to sell 16.2 million shares of its stock, priced between $41 and $43 apiece. This range was raised earlier this week, signaling strong demand. U.S. President Donald Trump's focus on commercializing space technology and safeguarding the national interests in space has attracted venture capital firms and billionaires. Elon Musk's SpaceX — the most valuable private company in the world — has become a critical part of the U.S. satellite network, even prompting a need across the government to look for more contractors. The U.S. government is betting that diversifying its contractor base will foster innovation and cut the huge costs of sending rockets to space, as well as reduce over-reliance on a single provider for critical missions. NASA's procurement process now includes new entrants such as Firefly Aerospace and Sierra Space, alongside legacy companies, leveraging commercial partnerships for lunar landers, space station modules and cargo deliveries. While space-related IPOs have been scarce in recent years, the tide is starting to turn in 2025. Firefly's listing comes on the heels of the successful New York flotations of space and defense firms Karman, AIRO Group and Voyager. As of Tuesday's close, shares of Karman have more than doubled from their offer price, while Voyager has gained 10%. "Given Firefly and the success of Voyager, I think you are going to see several more space-related companies test the waters of a public offering," said Ross Carmel, partner at law firm Sichenzia Ross Ference Carmel. TO THE MOON Formed in 2017, Firefly designs and manufactures small- to medium-lift launch vehicles, lunar landers and orbital vehicles. It had a backlog of roughly $1.1 billion and over 30 planned launches under contract as of March 31. While Houston-based Intuitive Machines' Odysseus lander was the first private lander to reach the moon last year, it made a lopsided touchdown, landing mostly intact but dooming many of its onboard instruments. Firefly's was the second, but its Blue Ghost spacecraft landed safely, reaching the moon's surface a month and a half after launching atop a SpaceX rocket from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Last month, Firefly secured a $176.7 million contract to deliver five NASA payloads to the Moon's South Pole in 2029. Firefly was valued at more than $2 billion in a 2024 funding round. The company's backers include aerospace-focused private investment firm AE Industrial Partners. U.S. defense contractor Northrop Grumman, which invested $50 million into Firefly to aid the production of their jointly developed rocket, is one of three suppliers of solid rocket motors (SRMs) to the United States. Firefly is expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "FLY" on Thursday.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
OpenAI Employee Share Sale Could Value Firm at $500 Billion
OpenAI, backed by Microsoft (MSFT, Financials), is in early talks for an employee share sale that could value the artificial intelligence firm at about $500 billion, a source familiar with the matter said. The deal would let current and former employees sell several billion dollars' worth of shares ahead of a possible initial public offering; it would mark a significant increase from OpenAI's current $300 billion valuation. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 7 Warning Sign with MSFT. The company's flagship product, ChatGPT, has driven rapid growth; revenue doubled in the first seven months of the year to an annualized $12 billion and is expected to reach $20 billion by year-end, according to the source. Weekly active users climbed to about 700 million from 400 million in February. The proposed sale follows a $40 billion primary funding round earlier this year, led by SoftBank Group, which committed $22.5 billion to the round; the rest of the funding was raised at a $300 billion valuation. Existing investors, including Thrive Capital, are in talks to participate in the share sale. The transaction would come as competition for AI talent intensifies; tech giants like Meta Platforms (META, Financials) are making multibillion-dollar investments to poach executives and researchers. Private firms such as ByteDance, Databricks and Ramp have also used secondary share sales to refresh valuations and reward long-term employees. OpenAI is planning a corporate restructuring to move away from its capped-profit model, which could pave the way for a future IPO; the company has said an offering would come only when market conditions are right. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Monthly Curriculums Are Trending on TikTok — Are They Worth the Hype for Parents?
Parents, you don't need to schedule every day of your month or have a perfectly curated curriculum to grow as a person. I'm a strong believer in the value of hobbies, especially now, when boredom can be cured with a single tap. Hobbies offer a fresh perspective, a chance to learn something new, and often a well-needed distraction from life's less pressing moments (like the Jet2 holiday sound we all can't stop singing). Whether it's reading a subject you wished you studied in college or dropping into a local workshop to sculpt a mug, setting aside time for yourself—especially as a parent—can be deeply rewarding. And now that no one's grading us, we get to explore topics that genuinely interest us, at our own pace, without fear of failure. So I was excited when I first came across TikTok's new monthly curriculum trend. Most videos start with creators setting their goals for the month, many of which centered around reading new books, exploring hobbies, and building better habits. But, as with most things online, this wholesome trend has split into two directions. The Monthly Curriculum Trend Sparks a New Type of Self-Care The monthly curriculum trend took off in early August as users (many of them moms and teens) began flooding the hashtag #monthlycurriculum with videos of their August goals. The goals range from what types of books they hope to finish by the end of the month, to setting time aside to journal and move their body. As one Tiktoker put it in her video, "I think it holds us accountable to not let the month go by without doing anything that stimulates our brains." Many #monthlycurriculum videos are incredibly wholesome, and some even feel a bit therapeutic. Some creators make goals to learn topics they were too self-conscious to explore during their time at school. In one video of a stay-at-home-mom sharing the list of books she hopes to read, she explains that she selected one on finances and even cheekily mentions that it is likely intended for high schoolers. "I'm a 32-year-old stay-at-home-mom and I decided to go through [the book] because I've never really been good with money and it's time to get my finances in order. So this is my economics unit." I've seen video after video of folks sharing what books they plan to read, what they hope to learn, and ways to hold themselves accountable (while still giving themselves grace—of course). Many are finding books at local libraries, recreating recipes to share with friends, and finally setting aside time to finish watching their favorite shows and movies. And while there's a strong focus on activities that promote learning, there's also a side of the trend that leans heavily into beauty enhancements and some curriculum videos are packed with activities that promise to help women "look better"—that is to be more conventionally attractive through dramatic weight loss or adhering to expensive skincare routines. The Not-So-Wholesome Side of the Monthly Curriculum Trend As with most online trends, it didn't take long before it went from inspiring to questionable. In one video, an influencer begins by opening her laptop and showing a slideshow that starts with a slide entitled "Monthly Curriculum"—which is how most of these videos start. But beneath it reads "Miami Girl Glow-Up Guide." She begins to explain that this video will help people "become the best version of themselves." In the video, she runs through over a dozen different things women should start doing, including hot yoga/sauna/steam room two or three times a week, daily red-light therapy, castor-oil-Epsom-salt baths, drinking natural juices every single morning, buying new workout sets (to motivate you to workout), a 10-mile walk once a week, hot pilates four or five times a week, doing a hair mask once or twice a week, scheduling a lymphatic drainage facial (or micro-needling), and much much more. The video is over six minutes long and doesn't mention any creative or intellectual goals until five minutes and 30 seconds in. In another video, another creator emphasizes going to the gym five times a week as her non-negotiable goals in her monthly curriculum, "I'm starting to get older and genetics can only help with so much," she says. However, she does include goals like learning a new instrument. At its worst, this trend veers into "looksmaxxing" territory—a term used online to describe doing everything possible to optimize physical appearance. The shift from encouraging personal growth to enforcing appearance-based perfectionism is subtle but significant and while many of these beauty goals are rooted in personal choice, the messaging—whether intentional or not—can imply that self-improvement is only valid if results in being more conventionally attractive. The idea that we must spend every moment becoming smarter, more interesting, and more beautiful can feel exhausting, especially for women already navigating unrealistic societal expectations. So, Is It Harmful or Harmless? The monthly curriculum trend might be one of the most positive movements I've seen come out of TikTok in recent memory. Folks are rediscovering their love for learning, finding ways to heal their inner child, and holding themselves accountable for what they know (and what they don't fully get yet). But as it gets swept into the tide of algorithm-driven beauty standards, it risks reinforcing the idea that every moment must be optimized, and that we must always be improving ourselves. While many of these curriculum videos are harmless and even healing, others include strict expectations to finish several lengthy books or master a new hobby—all within 30 days. The desire to learn more isn't inherently bad, but when improvement is treated like a full-time job, it can leave people feeling inadequate or burned out. You don't need to schedule every day of your month or have a perfectly curated curriculum to grow as a person. In fact, sometimes the most meaningful progress comes from slow, meandering learning and quiet wins that aren't captured on a TikTok slideshow. (You should still try to finish that book, though). Read the original article on Parents Solve the daily Crossword