Feet-First Into the Machine: The Rise of AI-Generated Sneakers
Subscribe to our Newsletter temples, matrimonial and sneakers that look like they’ve crash-landed on the set of a Ridley Scott sci-fi flick. We’ve seen a revival of the Italian Renaissance, techno-coloured sparked by electric fever dreams, and Swoosh stores teetering on the edge of post-apocalyptic worlds. Buckle up as we take the red pill route and travel deep inside the algorithm to comprehend AI’s circuit-breaking impact on the future of sneaker design.
Shock Me Like an Electric Heel
There’s already enough AI-powered sneaker design floating about social feeds to fry hard drives and melt synapses. Some are blatantly cartoonish, while others throw baroque, scientific and even convincing vintage patina into the mix. Take, for instance, the AI artist known only as , who went viral with Renaissance-inspired streetwear that looked a lot like Jerry Lorenzo had secured a Medici family commission in the 16th century.
‘AI is going to play a huge role in the future of sneakers. We all take ideas from each other. But now, by giving AI loose creative freedom, we can take inspiration from ideas that were once unimaginable,’ says Str4ngeThing.
The sentiment that AI will help break open new creative frontiers of the human mind was echoed by many of the artists we spoke to. ‘The limits of imagination are expanding beyond what has ever been possible before,’ says a Portland-based creative director. ‘It’s our job to push forward and constantly explore and redefine those limits.’
Patterns and Paradigms
At its most basic level, generative AI creates images and words based on a variety of inputs, such as text, sounds, animation and more. The module will detect patterns and paradigms within existing data to generate reconstituted content in the form of (literally) anything – from Eminem vocals to accurate sports roundups for newspapers and intricate sneaker designs. The list of potential outputs is as endless as the inputs are creative. If you’re keen to get cooking, check out the AI-tech available from Midjourney, DALL-E, Stable Diffusion and Artbreeder.
‘The results can be quite random, but they also depend on the input and the AI model’s training,’ says ‘By providing the AI with specific guidelines and examples, we can somewhat control the output while still leaving room for creative and unexpected results.’
Generative AI is constantly evolving because researchers are combining the best attributes of different models with super-computers that actively seek out billions of extra data points. The ultimate Promethean tool for engineers, scientists, researchers and – you guessed it– sneaker designers, is therefore still in toddler mode, although it’s learning fast.
The Death of Artistry
Given generative AI already produces undeniably impressive visuals, the techno-Faustian pact to power up workflows and produce a kaleidoscope of imaginative content in mere minutes has obvious commercial appeal. But there are ethical quandaries associated with its use, among other more lethal possibilities such as ultra-realistic deep fake videos.
The art world has already provided several pivotal moments that have illuminated the difficulties of policing ownership and creation in an AI-enhanced world. In September 2022, the Colorado State Fair became the unassuming battleground for this debate. Jason Allen, a videogame designer from Pueblo, submitted artwork for a competition using Midjourney and Gigapixel AI software – tools that convert lines of text into hyper-realistic imagery. Allen spent roughly 80 hours on his piece, Théâtre d’Opéra Spatial, and after the judges awarded him first prize and a $300 cheque, it didn’t take long for the internet to sound off.
‘We’re watching the death of artistry unfold right before our eyes – if creative jobs aren’t safe from machines, then even high-skilled jobs are in danger of becoming obsolete. What will we have then?’ one commentator Tweeted. ‘Vacation time,’ quipped another user in response.
For his part, Jason Allen exonerated himself based on the fine print in the competition guidelines. ‘I won and didn’t break any rules,’ he told The New York Times.
Months later, Boris Eldagsen won the Sony World Photography Awards with Pseudomnesia: The Electrician. He later declined the W, citing philosophical issues. ‘AI images and photography should not compete with each other in an award like this,’ he wrote in a statement. ‘They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award.’
Field Skjellerup, who posts content as is well aware of the contradictions and potential for hypocrisy. ‘The underlying discussion surrounding influence and originality is present in art and design regardless. How is using a trained dataset of photos to synthesise new imagery from multiple influences any different from screenshotting people's work on Pinterest and putting them on my mood board for reference as a designer? Is it only that the whole process is now automated and can be operated in one swift motion that we have a problem?'
Feeding the Machine
The AI regulation debate raged and evolved throughout 2023, as lawmakers, lawyers, artists and authors tussled over myriad complexities. In May, Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGPT parent company OpenAI, revealed his biggest fears before US Congress. ‘I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong.’ In a question-and-answer session that lasted nearly three hours, Altman called on Congress to create safety standards and carry out independent audits. The same month, Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called ‘godfather of AI’, left Google, warning of the impending threat of a technology he helped conceive.
The paperwork is piling up fast. In August 2023, a Washington federal judge ruled that AI-generated artwork is not eligible for copyright protection as it is created without ‘human involvement’. That decision backed the U.S. Copyright Office, as it asserted the same principle in March, though the case is still under appeal. Adding a few words of text to an image generator therefore does not constitute an act of authorship and can’t be copyrighted. Where that leaves IRL sneakers designed by AI is another nebulous matter that will undoubtedly be tested in court in years to come.
In September, a group of authors (including Pulitzer Prize–winner Michael Chabon) sued OpenAI in San Francisco, accusing the company of feeding their work to ChatGPT for training purposes. It’s the third copyright-infringement class action filed by authors against OpenAI. For context on why creatives are so incensed, try asking ChatGPT to tell you a joke in the style of Sarah Silverman – another writer pursuing redress through litigation.
System Overload: Blended and Barfed Out
Steven Smith, a design veteran at and and now head of industrial design at Donda, views generative AI as a form of technological regurgitation. I ask him whether sneaker designers will even need to sketch anything in the future. Will they simply log into work and punch a few keywords into AI algorithms?
‘If you want a blended output of pre-existing content barfed out at you, go for it. I would rather use the power of our own minds to pave a new direction,’ he says. While Smith does find some generative AI sneakers interesting, he also feels it’s ultimately just a ‘distorted conglomerate of what’s already in existence’.
Having worked in the industry for over three decades, Smith’s analogue bullshit detector is just one of his finely tuned skills. He’s never been afraid to ruffle feathers or burn a bridge or two, but for Smith, AI will never replace the fundamental processes of blood-and-guts inspiration. ‘Generative AI is just another tool to me,’ he says. ‘It may lead you downa different aesthetic, but it’s no substitute for humanistic design. We try to deal with real thoughts and ideas.’
Skynet in Other Words
For many of us, the thought of rampant AI sparks a particular set of dystopian images – robot arms scything through elevator doors, biker jackets and metallic splooge – Skynet in other words. Regardless of how good Arnold Schwarzenegger looks in 2029 Los Angeles, AI is forcing many industries – fashion, scriptwriting and journalism to name just three – to stare down further existential threats.
‘Top people in the field are super worried,’ says Colm Dillane, founder of KidSuper. ‘It’s bad and getting out of control. I mean, AI is probably going to read this and go after me first.’
Known for his distinctively hand-crafted apparel, Dillane recently collaborated with Louis Vuitton for the Fall/Winter 2023 menswear collection. He is, among all of those invested in the fashion industry, a poster boy for relentless DIY attitude.
‘Is AI a threat to jobs?’ I texted him.
‘A thread to humanity,’ Dillane replied, ironically, auto-corrected.
I pose a similar question to ChatGPT. ‘Will AI make human sneaker designers obsolete?’ The response reeks of boring management-speak, a criticism many have made of AI-generated text. ‘The future lies in harnessing the collaborative potential of AI and human designers, resulting in a synergy that pushes the boundaries of innovation and elevates the field of design to new heights.’
That utopian sentiment is reiterated by ‘The potential for AI to revolutionise the creative process is immense. AI will enable creatives to push the boundaries, automate repetitive tasks and explore new aesthetics and forms. In the future, we can expect to see a more collaborative relationship between humans and AI, where each party brings their unique strengths to the table.’
Steven Smith, for one, is not fazed by the creative paradox – it’s the ‘Mr Anderson’ characters deep in the matrix who want to save a few dollars that ring his bell. ‘What alarms me is the businesspeople thinking it’s a substitute for the endless possibilities of a human mind. The mentality of AI being used by non-visual thinkers to replace us is alarming.’
Collaboration is an addictive buzzword that has provided unadulterated rocket fuel for the sneaker industry for close to 20 years, though nobody envisaged it would also describe the relationship between human designers and machines. While sci-fi films and piles of industry open letters will point to the ominous blinking red lights at the end of the doomsday tunnel, a symbiotic relationship between humankind and machine seems the most likely outcome. At the very least, we’ll have some wild sneaker heat for our feet when the Day of Reckoning™ arrives.