Billot took these outputs as designs, which he then tried to recreate through material garments — effectively turning the most common AI-assisted design process on its head, so that the AI becomes the designer and the human handles its execution.
“I don’t think AI is just a tool. I think you can use it as a tool, but I think it’s a waste of energy and almost an unsustainable way of using AI,” Billot says. “But I also don’t like to say that it’s a design partner, because that would mean that it would be almost like a person, and there’s something uncanny about it, and I have nothing uncanny when I work with AI.”
“Instead, I like to say that it is a material, because it has some constraints and properties to embrace,” he adds. “If we start to erase those properties, then I see no reason why we should work with AI.”
At odds with human creativity
At the opposite end of the spectrum to Billot, several designers believe that in the age of AI, human creativity should be fiercely protected, and that all creative endeavors should remain untouched by the tech.
After her London show in February, Greek designer Dimitra Petsa of Di Petsa said she thinks AI is a tool the industry should be very careful with.
“I think it’s interesting that we always see technology advance faster than the ethical debate surrounding it,” Petsa said. “Aesthetic and creativity is something very deeply human, and I personally think that AI will never be able to feel when a design is relevant, how it sits in fashion history, and how it reads from an aesthetic philosophy point of view; these are all too complex and human and abstract I feel.”
While she acknowledged that AI “isn’t going anywhere” and can potentially aid more operational parts of a creative business, Petsa predicted that consumers will lean more and more to the tactile and tangible in the age of AI.
