Last weekend, Google’s Eric Schmidt wrote an op-ed piece for the BBC. The article focuses on his feeling that we are right at the beginning of an amazing future that is only possible through AI (artificial intelligence). One of the most widely reported parts of the op-ed is him slamming Apple Music as being elitist because the music is human curated. Schmidt prefers a “smart system” learning from the community as a whole (read: AI) because it allows “everyone to discover the next big star through our own collective tastes and not through the individual preferences of a select few.” While on paper it makes some sense, music doesn’t work like that. Pandora is perfectly pleasant, but wouldn’t you rather be listening to a mix tape tape created just for you? That’s because a human touch is needed to play just the right songs at just the right time. Musicians have long criticized A&R guys for being are gatekeepers, but the truth is there is an art and a feel to artist development that cannot be replaced with science, numbers, and computers. Using computers to shape tastes and trends does not allow for abnormalities (something radically different) and emphasizes a culture of unified tastes.
A few days ago Schmidt sat down with WWD and extended his thoughts on AI to also cover fashion. It is his belief that computers will be used to allow designers to decide what is “cool” and what is not. According to Schmidt, “There’s a science around cool.” Modeling how people migrate towards “cool,” he asserts that AI will be able “to take a picture of a dress and tell a brand whether it was going to be cool or not.” Even more so than his statements on music, it is tough to agree with Schmidt.
Fashion design has an organic quality to it that would become whitewashed without a human touch and human decisions. That is because fashion, like all art, is not about logic or numbers, it is about emotions and feelings, things that cannot be replicated with modeling and artificial thought. When people see an article of clothing (or a painting) that they love, there is a visceral response beyond simply thinking “I want to buy this to be ‘cool’.” Art, whether in creation or consumption, lends itself to self expression. ‘Cool’, as Schmidt calls it, cannot be predicted.
The fashion industry is unlikely to take too many cues from the billionaire who at least has the self awareness to admit, “I have no taste in fashion.” But when you consider that he does have an advisory board seat at Tory Burch, Schmidt’s statements carry more gravitas. With one of largest, most influential companies in the the world eyeing AI as a driver of what’s popular tomorrow, it will be interesting to see what the future of taste-making is.
