Sources

Use these as the visible source list at the end of the article:

• Google DeepMind — A24 research partnership and Google investment. Google DeepMind and A24 announce research partnership

• Financial Times — Luxury firms’ growing use of “intellectual influencers.” Meet luxury firms' new branding tool: the intellectual influencer

• UK Intellectual Property Office — trademark records showing downloadable virtual clothing under Class 9. UKIPO Trade Mark Journal

• Vogue — continuing balletcore and ballet-fashion relevance. Birkenstock and Repetto Have Just Dropped the Ultimate Ballet Pump Hybrid

Episode Chapters

00:00 — The Future of Taste

00:28 — The Metaverse Did Not Die. It Became Infrastructure

04:45 — Could Smart Glasses Complete the Metaverse?

07:25 — Why Luxury Is Turning to Ballet

10:21 — Luxury’s Influencer Problem

13:10 — Can AI Create Taste?

16:08 — AI and the Economics of Creative Work

19:23 — Will AI Raise the Standard for Human Creativity?

21:13 — Good Call / Bad Call

21:18 — A24 × Google DeepMind

24:02 — Luxury Turns to Intellectual Influencers

26:26 — AI Virtual Try-On

27:43 — The Floor Is Yours

27:55 — Who Becomes a Tastemaker in the Age of AI?

Transcript

Yuri (00:28)

A few years ago, fashion went all in on the metaverse. Then the hype collapsed, and so many people assumed the metaverse was over. But some major brands never really left. And now there is something more concrete happening. Virtual goods, including virtual clothing, are recognized under Class 9 of the trademark system, giving brands a clearer way to protect digital products and intellectual property.

Gigi (01:00)

Well, I love this subject because in 2022 I was the head of Metaverse Fashion Week. I think sometimes we get too stuck on terms. The term metaverse was probably overused, and probably used in the wrong way. But I don't think it ever left. It graduated into something else that is now part of the lives of Gen Alpha, especially younger Gen Z. When you look at the rise of game-streaming culture and gaming communities on platforms like Roblox, Zepeto, Minecraft and Fortnite, those are the children of the metaverse. They created environments around user-generated content, co-creation and the consumption of digital goods. That community really understands the value of a digital good because their self-expression is directly attached to their avatar. There is another element that has nothing to do with Gen Alpha. In fashion, accessories and jewelry, there is more and more interest in creating digital twins for multiple purposes. You can have metadata inside a 3D model that you send to manufacturing. You can use it for pattern-making, and there is a lot of logistics that can be facilitated by 3D assets. Because of that, there is this need that is gradually becoming standard. If I am making this jacket, I can also have a digital version of it that I send to my factory somewhere in Milan or China with all the information needed. Then you have this third layer that I think is the most important for brands right now: digital product passports. Those assets can be linked to physical products. So when you open the door to the metaverse, yes, you have the component of gaming and virtual worlds, but then you slowly see all these other functionalities enabled by the virtualization of goods. That's why I think it's not really dead. It just transformed.

Yuri (03:32)

What I think is interesting about Class 9 is that digital fashion is starting to look like a real business, not just an experiment. Brands can now think about virtual products as something they can build, protect and potentially monetize. And younger consumers already spend an enormous amount of time expressing themselves inside games and digital environments. So perhaps the real opportunity was never NFTs. It was digital identity. The lesson here is that the hype disappeared, the behavior remained, and now the infrastructure is catching up.

Gigi (04:11)

And I think the same thing is going to happen with AI. Everybody is talking about AI on a B2C level. That's the conversation we see. But what really matters is what happens backstage. What really impacts businesses is infrastructure, logistics, optimization and making things better. The same applies to the metaverse. That's what I think is really left behind from that era.

Yuri (04:41)

Anything else that you think we're going to start hearing more about?

Gigi (04:45)

I think there is another component. We have to see how visually accepted it will be, but I think we are entering this era where smart glasses are coming back. We see the rebirth with Meta Ray-Ban, and we have all these promises involving Google, Gentle Monster, Samsung and others. Maybe we are trying once again to see how mixed reality and augmented reality may play out. If that works, because everything depends on hardware limitations, that could be a huge piece that was missing from the metaverse promise when it comes to digital fashion and digital accessories. The whole dream was: if I create a digital look that my avatar can wear, I want to be able to wear that too in the real world. Regardless of whether there is a physical twin or not, that could mean crazy makeup on my face or an animated jacket. We may see that possibility if these glasses succeed. But so far, what I have tested and what seems to work best is audio-based AI glasses. It is not really visually inputted information. It is mostly voice. So we have to see what people will really accept. Based on that, we may see this additional layer of the metaverse being unleashed into our lives in the way it was originally imagined.

Yuri (06:14)

Give me an example of the audio-based experience that you see developing in terms of human behavior overall.

Gigi (06:21)

A lot of these AI glasses allow us to track the space around us. One thing I have been testing is, let's say I have different pieces of clothing in my wardrobe, and I talk to my Meta Ray-Bans and ask: what look can I make? It's not super advanced yet, but I think it could become a very good clothing concierge as these AI assistants become more customized around our taste and our shopping habits. It will understand more about how to activate what is available around you. We can all do that on our own. We don't need glasses for that. But the glasses may say, "You have this red jacket and these incredible pants. What if you go to Zara and get this other hat that would look great with this outfit?" I think the shopping experience could become a ubiquitous part of your daily activities instead of you going to social media and seeing an ad.

Yuri (07:25)

Fashion and ballet have been connected for generations. Coco Chanel worked with the Ballets Russes more than a century ago. And today brands like Chanel and Rolex continue to support major ballet institutions. But ballet is also having another cultural moment. Ballet is attracting younger audiences, dancers are becoming more visible, and luxury brands are building stronger ties with the ballet world. So why does ballet feel particularly relevant to luxury right now?

Gigi (07:56)

That's an interesting question because my grandmother was a ballerina at the Municipal Theatre of São Paulo, where I was born. So ballet is in my family in a way. She also had a very famous store in São Paulo in the 1980s supplying ballerinas. But I think ballet represents something everybody is looking for right now. I think everybody is looking for rituals and ceremonies they can be part of. Dance is something really performative. When we dance, we dissociate from everything else. In a world where everything is so data-driven and computed, going back to dance, performance and the body is a way for us to reconnect. I think this is very appealing to younger generations. We also see that TikTok culture has a lot to do with dancing. You have little TikTok dances, and ballet becomes the elevated version of that. You have classical music and ballet in one pocket, and then TikTok dances, hip-hop and street dance in another. I also feel there is this wave of femininity coming into fashion, especially younger fashion. And dancing is a resistance to the digital system in a way, because you cannot feel dance the same way inside the metaverse or through a chat. It becomes a disconnection activity. So that's my bet. I don't know. Do you have an opinion about it?

Yuri (09:53)

I think for me there is something about ballet that naturally connects with the idea of luxury. Ballet represents discipline, time, dedication and craftsmanship. You just don't become a great ballerina overnight. You dedicate a lifetime to mastering your craft. And real luxury works in kind of the same mentality, the same idea. Value comes from the idea that certain things cannot be rushed.

Gigi (10:21)

And I also feel that we have a crisis in influencer culture, thankfully. I would much rather follow a performer, a dancer or an Olympic athlete than some guy in what may or may not be a private jet. You don't even know if that's true. Maybe this is a sign that we are moving away from valuing what people have as acquired goods. Because at the end of the day, talent cannot be acquired. A professional ballerina has a skill built through sacrifice. It's something you cannot just buy tomorrow. Anyone can get the hair and the bag, real or not, go to a fake jet and make a video. But can you really do a full choreography? Can you perform? So if we start shifting toward people we look up to because they actually earned their skills, I think this is a beautiful movement if that's what the luxury sector associates with. But on a negative note, ballet is definitely not a democratic art form. It was never really available to the masses in the same way, and it is associated with opera. So again, it is about the elite. Luxury tapping into it makes sense because it is a traditional art form that has always belonged to that spectrum. I think luxury will always tap into tradition. They can do something cool and fun with Pharrell, but eventually, if their origins are in traditional arts, they should tap into that. It's a beautiful piece of heritage. It's part of the immaterial patrimony of each nation. When you think about opera and ballet, they are strongly associated with France, Italy and Russia, and many luxury brands are based in those places. So why not? It feels like a natural path. Maybe brands are trying that more. Instead of pretending to be super chill or cool, how about just being yourself? I think at the end of the day that's always the best thing: being truthful to your identity in the luxury space as a brand.

Yuri (13:10)

We all know AI is making it easier to create images. But for luxury, the real question is: can AI create taste? Gucci was a good example, regardless of whether it was a marketing campaign or a gimmick. The reaction wasn't only about AI. It was about whether the images still felt like Gucci. A brand can use new tools, but it still needs a clear identity. Gigi, how do you see it?

Gigi (13:36)

I think that's where it gets interesting. Sometimes in luxury there is this big belief that a creative director can carry a particular strategy from one brand to another. But I think we forget the target audience. Brands have different communities. And I feel that with the rise of AI, this will become even more evident. It raises a big conversation around who owns taste and how brands will navigate the creation of imagery with AI while keeping their ethos. Automating processes doesn't mean losing your identity. But if you don't know your identity really well, an AI strategy may not support that. You may fall into a trap where everything could be your brand. It becomes more general and more redundant. At the same time, I have this whole theory that right now we heavily criticize what looks bad. But whatever looks bad means something today. It's contextual. We look at early AI images, hallucinations, AI slop and brain rot, and we say, "This is bad." But I sometimes wonder if 10 years from now we will look back and say, "My God, we were criticizing AI slop, but that's so cool and fun." Maybe all brands will tap into that. Maybe there will even be art exhibitions around AI slop, and people will use that aesthetic to sell more. I think that's very likely. There may be an acceptance-threshold shift in the coming 10 years. But I agree that sometimes the craftsmanship feels lost, especially when we're seeing a lot of different directions instead of a clear communication and storytelling strategy. That's how it felt to me.

Yuri (15:45)

I think that's a fascinating point. Can you imagine 10 or 15 years from now seeing AI slop as nostalgia, like we see the 1980s and 1990s now?

Gigi (15:54)

I don't doubt that. I can imagine art exhibitions about AI slop, and people using that aesthetic to sell more. I think it's very likely.

Yuri (16:08)

Now, there's another side of this conversation. These campaigns don't really take one person. It is an entire team. There are photographers, models, stylists, makeup artists, you name it. It's an entire industry around it. AI will change the economics of that entire system. We have to ask what happens to the creative ecosystem that used to produce it.

Gigi (16:29)

Definitely. I think it's inevitable that artificial intelligence will shift the ways of working. In the case of real-life photo shoots, people will not be needed in the same way they were before. But when you look at the disruption of technologies across industries, not just fashion, there is also always the rise of new jobs. There may be specialties that come into existence over the coming years. When I teach students or work with brands, I always say that not every brand, in every moment, should replace physical shoots with full AI workflows for image and video creation. You can understand the use case. Maybe you have to create an image catalog for e-commerce that includes 20,000 images. Clearly that's a case for automation. But then maybe you have a short film featuring Demi Moore that is really about the heritage of the brand. That's where I feel traditional making should be applied. Brands need to understand when they should use AI. It's not because I can that I should. And yes, we will probably have fewer jobs in some sectors because you will do fewer photo shoots. But those jobs will not disappear.

Yuri (18:00)

I like the point that you said it has to be situational. For the special moments, for the special things, you will bring your A-team.

Gigi (18:07)

Yes, and maybe that will open the door for other types of activations that require those professionals to be involved too. Maybe you create small events, community activations or hidden fashion shows. Maybe you create a photo shoot where people come to watch the making, and the purpose is not only the final image but the happening itself. The more we use automation in image creation, the more unexpected, extroverted and unusual real-life activations will matter. Maybe that's a way to shift those teams into things that create a sense of belonging for the people participating. But I agree there will always be an A-team. Even if you are internally implementing AI, you need expert minds to drive the results and train the model. You cannot just fire everybody, type basic prompts and expect great results. You'll get mediocre results. And that's not what luxury aims for.

Yuri (19:23)

And does that raise the standard? If there are fewer opportunities, do creative professionals have to become more original, more experimental and harder to replace?

Gigi (19:33)

I actually feel it's already very hard to stand out because there is so much of everything. But I do think people will have to push limits. They will have to take more risks, try crazier things, unusual methods and unconventional ways of working. AI is working with what already exists. The people who remain as the geniuses of the future will be the ones creating things that are not already in the database and can't be directly replicated. I also think the worst thing I see is emerging talent feeling afraid to embrace or test the technology. I'm not saying you have to use it, but you can't really criticize something you don't understand. First, you'll sound uninformed. Second, you may make the wrong assessment and lose an opportunity. I think it's more about changing your mindset. It's not really about the tool. It's about understanding how you can create different workflows in your creative process. My workflow may be completely different from yours. Even if we use similar tools, the steps can be different and the results can be completely different. That could actually be a benefit for the creative community.

Yuri (21:13)

Now we move to the part of the segment we call Good Call, Bad Call.

Yuri (21:18)

Okay, first, Google is investing roughly $75 million in A24 as part of a partnership with DeepMind to develop and explore AI tools for filmmaking. What is interesting is that A24's own film and television library is not part of the deal. So A24 gets to participate in shaping the technology while protecting the creative work it has already produced. Good call or bad call?

Gigi (21:46)

I think it's a good call. I think Los Angeles will hate me, but I think it's a good call. If you're a movie producer and you're not testing what Google and other companies are offering, you're making a huge mistake. That doesn't mean traditional cinema will disappear. It can also create opportunities for smaller filmmakers, for studios from all over the world, and for people working outside Hollywood. So I'm in favor, as long as you have boundaries around IP protection and creator protection. It's better to do it together with the film industry than against the film industry. A24 is a company I appreciate. I think they're a studio and production company that really understands future desires, trends and how to navigate the digital ecosystem. I think they know what they're doing.

Yuri (22:43)

I understand Google's point of view 100%. A24 is one of the studios most associated with quality and artistic vision in filmmaking. So bringing A24 into this partnership also brings cultural credibility to AI. I think protecting the library is important. They're saying, "We'll participate in this, but we won't simply hand over the creative work we've already developed."

Gigi (23:16)

I think the most important conversation around audiovisual creation and AI is protecting IP. Once you protect IP, or make sure that owners of that IP are paid for whatever is used, many of the concerns become manageable. Maybe you're using it, but you pay royalties back. If that is sorted, I think we should explore. And I'm sure the community around A24 and their experts can help Google take things to the next level when it comes to camera movements, language and the glossary AI needs to understand cinema. That's the question: how do you train AI to understand what cinema is?

Yuri (24:02)

Next is something that goes back to what we said earlier about how influencers are changing. Luxury brands are increasingly working with writers, journalists and intellectuals. Miu Miu has hosted literary conversations, and brands like Dior, Valentino and Coach have created projects around writers and literature. After years dominated by celebrities and influencers, luxury seems increasingly interested in a different kind of influence.

Gigi (24:36)

Thank God. Hallelujah. I honestly think it's a good decision. We see the rise of Substack, and I think people want intellectual exchange. Information is not a commodity anymore. Anyone has access to information. Processing information, making associations and developing cognition are different. Those aren't things you get simply by reading data from ChatGPT. You acquire them from people who think and who stimulate you to think more. I think that's good because it gives brands more to talk about than beautiful faces. Maybe we're entering a more intellectual era because we're tired of shallowness. I also think it's about trust. Luxury brands need to rebuild trust right now. People question the origin of products, whether prices are fair and what brands actually stand for. Associating with critical thinkers who generate real material that people can learn from and grow from is one way to rebuild that trust.

Yuri (25:51)

I agree. For me, it's a good call if brands can genuinely create a space for ideas. But that means allowing people to actually think, question and sometimes challenge. Otherwise, we're simply creating another tier of influencers, and it's not as meaningful as it could be. It becomes another marketing opportunity instead of a deeper opportunity to connect with the audience.

Yuri (26:26)

Next is AI virtual try-on. It's quickly moving from novelty into online shopping. Instead of only seeing clothes on a model, customers can increasingly see how a product might look on themselves before buying. Early industry research suggests this could increase purchasing and potentially reduce returns, although some of those numbers come from companies developing the technology. Good call or bad call?

Gigi (26:50)

It's a good call, but with a caveat. It can be a cool technology for styling and seeing yourself in something. But you still don't truly see how the clothes will look on you. You see a simulation, and it's usually going to fit well and look great. So it doesn't completely solve the fitting problem. I think it's a good call as long as companies keep developing solutions to solve those other problems. It also needs to become more inclusive. Do you have solutions for people with disabilities? Most try-on systems are designed around people without physical limitations. Sometimes they put your face onto a body that isn't really yours. It needs to become truthful to sizing. Google's try-on is slightly better when it comes to sizing, but it still doesn't solve the problem of how the fabric actually falls.

Yuri (27:43)

Now we go to the part of the show we call The Floor Is Yours. Gigi, it's your opportunity to share something you're passionate about, something you've seen or something you would like us to know. So please go ahead. The floor is yours.

Gigi (27:55)

What has been on my mind recently is the future of taste. I think it relates to everything we spoke about. I'm not going to advertise anything about myself. I would rather provoke people to think about this: In a world where we can all create images, what really makes someone a tastemaker? Who is a tastemaker, and who will be a tastemaker in the future? I've been discussing this a lot with my peers because I think it will become more challenging to develop your own taste. The more we're exposed to image creation by AI, the more we're also exposed to the bias AI gives us. So if I have to use this floor to preach anything, I would say: don't stay at home watching what AI can create. Build your own little cabinet of curiosities in the world. Go out and collect leaves. Take photos of things. Spend time outdoors. Experiment. More than ever, the source of inspiration for anything people do will come from their personal experience. Personal experience doesn't live in databases. What you feel is not fully translatable yet. For people who want to pursue a career as a tastemaker, it isn't really about trends. It's about building your own repertoire of life memories. That's what, in my opinion, is going to allow you to remain unique in a world of sameness.

Yuri (29:52)

Spoken like a true Brazilian.

Gigi (29:55)

Obrigada.

Yuri (29:58)

Gigi, thank you for joining us. For those who want to learn more about your work, where can they find you?

Gigi (30:03)

You can find me on LinkedIn and Instagram. You can also find me at the Institut Français de la Mode in Paris, where I lead the technology departments. If you want to have a coffee with me, just stop by. I'm always there. We can have a chat. And Yuri, you're welcome anytime. We should definitely have coffee. Thanks for having me.

Yuri (30:26)

Thank you.