I feel like the headline is kinda misleading and the issues involved are messed up too.

The headline makes it sound like they made her skin tone lighter, which I would think is a very common edit, even in non-professional settings.

But turns out her face was replaced entirely. On top of that, she was working for exposure, without pay. The issue should be that this supposedly famous designer can obviously afford to pay his models, having them work for exposure should be the scandal with denying her that exposure as a secondary issue.

It's as if being a model isn't dehumanizing enough and photoshop is an AI

According to the designer, it was a fan art picture that he re-shared on social media.

If true, I don't understand why the article was even written.

Picture it, a small conservative city in the year 2000. A black man dressed in drag with a Christmas tree headpiece made with green garland. Photos were taken for the front cover of gay newspaper.

Photos came back from the photo lab. Definitely no AI involved. White woman with blonde hair. Truly a work of art but not appreciated.

This article has nothing to do with AI, but thanks for the Clickbait.

This should surprise absolutely no one because AI does not exist. There is no subtelty, no different definitions for the same thing.

The picture on the right is supposed to be better?!?! Who decides this nonsense, the one on the right looks like a cross between Voldemort and Cruella Deville

Looking white is dehumanising?

Also, how does she know AI was used? That can be done with Photoshop.