Artificial Intelligence has many benefits (like catching out catfish on dating apps!). However many professionals have expressed concern over the transformative power of this technology. And, the threat of computer-generated content creation to signal the end of their livelihood. From accounting to education, a number of industries are reacting to the potential of having their roles replaced by AI alternatives. And the glamorous modelling game is no exception. But, could a robot really replace a real-life model? Chelsea Bonner, former catwalk queen and founder of Bella Model Management, shares her opinion on the impact of AI and the modelling industry. As well as the broader effects it ultimately has on other creative careers.
The model behind the movement
As the Executive Director of Bella Model Management, Chelsea has long been a trailblazer in redefining beauty. And breaking boundaries in the fashion industry since founding her agency in 2002. Professionally, Bella Management has been at the forefront of promoting body positivity and mental health in the industry, securing world-first covers and fashion editorials for renowned publications. While Chelsea’s personal journey (starting as a curve model and transitioning to agency management) reflects her commitment to fostering talent and supporting models in their careers.
From caption to Canberra
A career catwalker, it was Chelsea’s recent Instagram post that put her back in the spotlight. Serving as a wake-up call to the looming challenges posed by AI in the modelling industry. The former clotheshorse highlighted a “photo shoot” she shared on an Instagram post. One she conducted in response to those hesitant to address the concerns of AI and the modelling industry.
In the accompanying caption, Chelsea wrote: “If the government don’t put legislation in place and boundaries/ clear warnings on the images we see they will devastate the entire billion-dollar gig economy of Aussie creatives; photographers, models, stylists, studios, producers, actors, all crew and hair and makeup artists involved in creating these images and all the many and varied businesses who support those artists… You can’t tax someone who doesn’t exist! Think of the loss of revenue from taxes we pay at the very least.”
She then went on to add, “In actuality, most of these fembot ‘bodies’ are made by men in tech. Which is disturbing on so many levels. But most importantly further disempowering woman’s agency over the female form. And how we choose to present ourselves to the world. The inaction on this issue is an absolute cluster of epic proportions on every single human, social, and economic level.”
The plot twist? Chelsea finally revealed that: “None of these bodies are real. I just uploaded a few random non professional pictures to ‘train’ my AI – took 5 mins”
A cause for concern
Chelsea’s concerns are founded on the issue of AI being predominantly owned and trained by men. Who dictate and shape digital representations of women. “Men who are sitting in rooms with their computers and a gaming chair deciding what women should look like,” she says. “In my research, I have created several versions of a hyper realistic AI of myself. Which confused even my closest friends. Every single time I have had to re-write the text prompts to make me softer, curvier, more natural. To take out visible nipples and belly buttons. Men have already fetishised AI tech, impacting all the women in your life who may unknowingly contribute to creating these likenesses, which can be used in various ways. If man-made AI fembots take over it will wipe out a female-led, diverse and inclusive industry. That is striving for inclusion and diversity every day.”
Chelsea then goes on to outline the financial implications of this. “In contrast, the fashion modelling industry is 90% a women’s industry,” she says. “It is perhaps the only industry in the world that is predominantly women run. From the producers and stylists, art directors, creatives and of course the models. The women who are modelling have completed bodily autonomy and choices about what they do or don’t want to wear. And which brands they will or won’t work for and the revenue they generate for the brand they work for is in the billions.
“Just one man can create and own unlimited versions of AI women and sell them to retailers for AI brand photography from his armchair anywhere is the world. Keeping all of that income normally spread throughout the Australian community of performing and creative artists. And avoid the taxes and superannuation they would normally have contributed to the Australian government. Billions in lost wages and taxes.”
Chelsea’s call to action
Ultimately, Chelsea emphasises the urgent need for government intervention. Through legislation, boundaries, and clear warnings on AI-generated images to safeguard the billion-dollar gig economy supporting Australian creatives.
She urges the Australian government to enact legislation limiting the use of AI. Underlining the potential devastation to the entire creative ecosystem. Chelsea calls for a collective consideration of the billion-dollar industry, encompassing photographers, models, stylists, studios, producers, actors, and various support businesses. She urges authorities to recognise the intricate web of interconnected professions that contribute to the industry’s vitality.
Looking forward, Chelsea advocates for regulation through a petition she has created in collaboration with Robyn Lawley and Tracey Spicer, recognising the inevitability of AI’s presence in the industry. While acknowledging the inability to stop AI entirely, she stresses the importance of retaining the human element and establishing safeguards such as warning labels and copyright protections.
As the modelling industry navigates the intricacies of AI, Chelsea’s insights and call to action serve as a rallying cry for the preservation of the diverse and inclusive spirit of creativity. A future where AI complements, rather than replaces, the rich tapestry of human creativity in the arts.
“We are asking as many people as possible to sign the petition we’ve created so we can get in the room with people who can regulate this industry. We can’t stop it entirely but we can retain the human element and find a way to balance this mess and at the very least establish warning labels and properly legislate its usage and copyright protections. At the moment there is absolutely nothing you or I can do to prevent someone using our faces on an AI body or CGI actor and commercialising the use of that image anywhere they want,” she says.
