AI Is Making Fast Fashion Faster. He's Betting on Shirts That Last Years

AI is making fast fashion faster. Trend cycles that used to take months now happen in weeks. Brands can spot what's trending on TikTok and have knockoffs in stores before the trend dies.

More products. More waste. More environmental damage.

Karthik is using the same technology to do the opposite. Islands of Loom makes shirts designed to last years, not months. Better fabrics, better construction, designed for durability instead of disposability.

His bet: As AI accelerates fast fashion to absurd speeds, consumers will start valuing quality over novelty.

He might be right. Or he might be building something that only appeals to a small niche. Either way, the conversation about what AI does to fashion is more interesting than most people think.

Key Takeaways

• Fast fashion's acceleration is unsustainable: AI-driven trend prediction means more products, faster cycles, and exponentially more waste
• Quality is the counter-positioning: When everyone competes on speed and price, competing on durability and longevity is a genuine differentiator
• The unit economics of quality: A $100 shirt worn 200 times costs $0.50 per wear. A $20 shirt worn 10 times costs $2 per wear—quality is often cheaper long-term
• Customers are learning: As landfills fill and returns pile up, more consumers are realizing the true cost of cheap clothes
• Sustainable doesn't mean boring: You can make durable, ethical fashion that actually looks good and fits modern aesthetics
• AI can enable both models: The same technology accelerating fast fashion can also optimize sustainable manufacturing and supply chains

The Full Conversation

Everyone's talking about how AI is transforming fashion. What are they missing?

They're only looking at one side of it.

AI is absolutely accelerating fast fashion. Brands use it to predict trends, optimize supply chains, personalize marketing. They can go from spotting a trend to having products in stores faster than ever.

But AI can also enable the opposite. It can optimize manufacturing for quality, not just speed. It can predict demand accurately enough that you don't overproduce. It can help customers find clothes that actually fit so they don't buy and return.

The technology is neutral. How you use it determines whether it speeds up the problem or helps solve it.

Hot take: AI in fashion isn't the problem. The business models optimizing for disposability are the problem. AI just makes whatever model you're running more efficient.

Tell me about Islands of Loom. What are you building?

We make shirts that are designed to last.

That sounds simple, but it's surprisingly rare in modern fashion. Most shirts are designed to look good at point of sale and fall apart after a dozen washes. That's by design—if your clothes last, you buy less.

We're doing the opposite. Better fabrics, reinforced stitching, attention to construction quality. These shirts are meant to be worn for years, not seasons.

The bet is that enough people care about quality and longevity to build a real business around it, even if it means higher prices upfront.

Why shirts specifically?

Everyone wears shirts. It's one of the most universal garments.

And it's a category where quality actually matters. A well-made shirt feels different, wears better, lasts longer. It's not subjective or trendy; it's functional.

Starting with shirts also keeps our focus narrow. We're not trying to be everything to everyone. We're trying to be the best option for people who want shirts that last.

Once we nail that, we can expand. But if we try to do too much too fast, we'll be mediocre at everything.

You're competing with brands that can sell shirts for a fraction of your price. How do you win that battle?

We're not competing on price. We're competing on value.

A $20 fast fashion shirt that falls apart in six months isn't cheap if you have to replace it three times. A $100 shirt that lasts three years is actually cheaper per wear.

Plus, there's the intangible value of owning something well-made. It feels better, looks better, creates less guilt about waste.

Our customers aren't people trying to decide between us and Zara. They're people who've already realized that cheap clothes are expensive in the long run.

Hot take: The "cheapest option wins" narrative only works if you ignore time and durability. Cost per wear is the metric that actually matters, but most consumers never calculate it.

Fast fashion brands launch hundreds of new products every week. You're making shirts that don't change. How do you keep customers engaged?

This is one of the biggest mindset shifts we have to navigate.

Fast fashion has trained people to expect constant novelty. New styles, new trends, always something different to buy.

We're selling the opposite value proposition: Buy one great shirt and wear it for years. That's inherently less exciting as a shopping experience.

But here's the thing—more people are getting tired of the constant churn. They're realizing that having a closet full of mediocre clothes they never wear isn't actually fulfilling.

Our engagement isn't "what's new this week." It's building a relationship with customers around quality, sustainability, and intentional consumption.

It's a smaller market, but it's a more loyal one.

You mentioned AI earlier. How are you actually using it?

Primarily for operations—demand forecasting, supply chain optimization, customer service.

AI helps us predict demand more accurately so we don't overproduce. That's crucial for sustainability. Overproduction is one of fashion's biggest waste problems.

We also use it to optimize fabric sourcing, manufacturing schedules, logistics. The boring stuff that doesn't make headlines but makes a real difference in margins and environmental impact.

And like most brands, we use AI for customer support automation. But we're careful not to over-automate—some conversations need human judgment.

What's the hardest part of building a sustainable fashion brand?

Competing on perception when fast fashion is so normalized.

People see a $100 shirt and think "expensive" without questioning why a $20 shirt is even possible. They don't think about the hidden costs—environmental damage, labor exploitation, the fact that it'll fall apart in a few washes.

Changing that perception is slow work. You can't just run ads and convert people. It requires education, storytelling, building trust over time.

The brands that succeed in this space are the ones patient enough to play the long game.

You're betting that consumers will shift toward quality and sustainability. What if that doesn't happen?

Then we'll have a small but profitable business serving a niche market.

Look, I'm not naive. Most people will continue buying fast fashion. Convenience and low prices are powerful.

But even if it's only 5-10% of the market that genuinely cares about quality and sustainability, that's still millions of people globally. Plenty of room to build a real business.

And I think the trend is moving in our direction, even if slowly. Younger consumers especially are more aware of environmental impact, more skeptical of disposable culture.

It might not be the majority, but it's a growing segment.

Hot take: You don't need to convince everyone. You just need to serve the people who already share your values better than anyone else. That's enough to build a great business.

Let's talk about the economics. Can sustainable fashion ever compete with fast fashion on price?

At the unit level? Probably not. Quality materials and ethical labor cost more.

But at the lifetime level? Absolutely.

If I sell you a shirt for $100 that lasts five years, and a fast fashion brand sells you shirts for $20 each that last six months, you'll spend more with them over those five years.

The challenge is getting people to think in terms of total cost of ownership instead of sticker price.

Cars, phones, appliances—we already think this way about other purchases. Fashion is one of the few categories where people don't.

Changing that mindset is part of what we're trying to do.

What role does marketing play in your growth?

It's less about traditional marketing and more about storytelling and education.

We're not running massive ad campaigns or hiring influencers. We're sharing our story, explaining why we make the choices we make, bringing customers behind the scenes.

People don't buy from us just because we have nice shirts. They buy because they connect with what we're building and why we're building it.

That kind of marketing is slower but creates much stronger customer relationships. Our repeat purchase rate is way higher than industry average because people aren't just buying a product; they're supporting a mission.

You're in your 20s building a business with long-term thinking. That's unusual. Most people your age are chasing quick wins.

I think it's generational, honestly.

My generation is inheriting a lot of problems—climate change, unsustainable consumption patterns, systems that prioritize short-term profits over long-term impact.

A lot of us are building businesses that try to address those problems, not just exploit them for another exit.

Does that mean we grow slower and make less money quickly? Maybe. But we're building things we actually believe in, solving problems that matter.

That's worth more than optimizing for some acquisition target.

If fast fashion brands decided to pivot toward sustainability, could they?

Theoretically, yes. Practically, it's really hard.

Their entire business model is built around high volume and low margins. They'd have to completely redesign their supply chains, pricing, manufacturing, everything.

Some are trying. They launch "conscious collections" or sustainability initiatives. But it's mostly greenwashing because the core business model hasn't changed.

To truly become sustainable, fast fashion brands would have to sell fewer products at higher prices. That goes against everything their shareholders want.

So I don't think we'll see major fast fashion brands genuinely pivot. We'll see them get incrementally less bad while startups like ours build the alternative from scratch.

What's been the most surprising thing you've learned building this?

How much people want to care but don't know how.

We get customers all the time who say "I hate buying clothes that fall apart, but I didn't know there was a better option" or "I want to buy sustainable fashion, but everything looks boring or costs $500."

There's this assumption that consumers don't care about sustainability or quality. That's not true. They care, but the options have been bad.

If you make quality, sustainable fashion that actually looks good and is reasonably priced, people buy it.

The demand is there. The supply just hasn't been.

What's next for Islands of Loom?

Expanding the product line slowly and intentionally. Maybe pants, maybe jackets. But only when we're ready to do them as well as we do shirts.

Growing the team. Building better systems. Getting better at manufacturing and operations.

We're not chasing hockey stick growth. We're building something that lasts, which is kind of meta given what we sell.

I want Islands of Loom to be the brand people think of when they want clothes that won't fall apart. That takes time, but it's worth building.

Final Thoughts

Karthik's approach to fashion is a direct challenge to the industry's dominant model: Make less, make it better, make it last.

It's not revolutionary as an idea—this is how clothes were made for most of human history. But in 2026, when AI is accelerating trend cycles to absurd speeds, it's genuinely countercultural.

Whether the market rewards that approach remains to be seen. But the logic is sound: The true cost of a shirt isn't just the sticker price. It's the environmental impact, the replacement cost, the psychological cost of constant consumption.

For founders building in fashion or any physical product space, Karthik's lesson is clear: You don't have to compete on the same terms as everyone else. If the industry is racing toward faster and cheaper, there's space to compete on durability and quality.

It's a smaller market. But it might be a better business.

And in a world drowning in disposable products, maybe building things that last is the most valuable thing you can do.

Want more conversations like this?

This is what we do at ChaiNet—real conversations with people building real things. No rehearsed pitches, no corporate BS, just honest insights from founders, engineers, and operators in the trenches.

New episodes drop every week. Subscribe so you don't miss them.