Meet Tilly Norwood: She’s Not Art, She’s Data.
The risk technology poses to human creative expression moved a step nearer recently through the introduction of Tilly Norwood, the first 100% AI-generated actor. Unsurprisingly, her premiere at the Zurich film event in a comic sketch called AI Commissioner sparked controversy. The film was called “terrifying” by Emily Blunt and the actors’ union Sag-Aftra condemned it as “threatening artists' careers and cheapening human creativity”.
Many concerns arise with Norwood, especially the signal her “approachable” persona sends to female youth. However, the deeper issue is the construction of her face using real actors' likenesses without their knowledge or consent. Her cheerful introduction conceals the reality that she embodies an innovative system for producing media that rides roughshod over longstanding norms and laws overseeing artists and their creations.
Tinseltown has foreseen Norwood's debut for years. Movies like the 2002 science fiction film Simone, centered on a filmmaker crafting a flawless actress via computer, along with 2013's The Congress, featuring a veteran star being digitally captured by her production company, were remarkably prescient. Last year's shocker The Substance, with Demi Moore as a fading star who generates a youthful duplicate, likewise mocked the film world's fixation on youth and attractiveness. Currently, in a Frankenstein-esque turn, the movie industry confronts the “ideal actress”.
Norwood's originator, the actress and scribe Eline Van der Velden justified her as “not a substitute for a real person”, rather “an artistic creation”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. As per its supporters, AI will democratise film, since everyone will be able to make movies without the resources of a big studio.
Starting with the Gutenberg press through sound films and television, every artistic upheaval has faced fear and criticism. There wasn’t always an Oscar for visual effects, after all. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is already involved in movie production, notably in animated and science fiction categories. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – utilized artificial intelligence to refine voices. Dead actors including Carrie Fisher have been resurrected for posthumous cameos.
However, although some embrace these opportunities, as well as the prospect of AI actors slashing production costs by 90%, employees in the cinematic field are rightly concerned. The 2023 screenwriters' strike in Hollywood led to a limited win against the use of AI. And while A-listers’ views on Norwood have been widely reported, once again, it's the lesser-known workers whose positions are most threatened – supporting and voice artists, beauticians and production staff.
Digital performers are a natural outcome of a society flooded with social media junk, plastic surgery and deceit. At present, Norwood is unable to act or communicate. She lacks empathy, since, obviously, she isn't human. She isn't “art” as well; she is pure information. Real cinematic magic comes from human interaction, and that cannot be replicated by machines. We enjoy cinema to witness truthful characters in real places, expressing true sentiments. We do not want perfect vibes.
Yet, even if cautions about Norwood being a grave risk to movies are inflated, currently, anyway, that doesn’t mean there is nothing to fear. Legislation is slow and clunky, even as tech evolves rapidly. Further measures are needed to defend artists and cinematic staff, and the worth of human inventiveness.
