The AI Actress Tilly Norwood: She Is Not Artistic, She Is Data.
The threat to human creativity from technology moved a step nearer this week via the debut of Tilly Norwood, the first 100% AI-generated actor. As expected, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering within a humorous short titled AI Commissioner provoked strong reactions. The film was called “terrifying” by Emily Blunt and the actors’ union Sag-Aftra condemned it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
Numerous issues surround Norwood, including the implications of her “girl-next-door” image for young women. Yet the graver concern involves her facial features being derived from actual performers lacking their awareness or approval. Her lighthearted debut masks the fact that she is part of a new model of media production which disregards established conventions and regulations governing artists and their work.
Tinseltown has foreseen Norwood's debut for years. Features including the 2002 sci-fi tale Simone, depicting a director who designs an ideal actress digitally, and the 2013 production The Congress, in which an ageing star is digitally scanned by her studio, turned out to be incredibly forward-thinking. The recent body horror film The Substance, starring Demi Moore as a waning celebrity who spawns a younger clone, likewise mocked the film world's fixation on youth and attractiveness. Today, much like Victor Frankenstein, cinema faces its “perfect actress”.
Norwood’s creator, the actor and writer Eline Van der Velden defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, instead “a work of art”, portraying AI as a fresh instrument, similar to a brush. As per its supporters, AI will make filmmaking democratic, as all individuals can create films without major studio backing.
Beginning with the printing press to audible movies and TV, each innovative shift has been dreaded and denounced. The visual effects Oscar hasn't always existed, of course. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is already involved in movie production, notably in animated and science fiction categories. A pair of last year's Academy Award-winning movies – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – utilized artificial intelligence to refine voices. Late actors like Carrie Fisher have been brought back for roles after their passing.
However, although some embrace these opportunities, as well as the prospect of AI actors slashing production costs by 90%, workers in the film industry are justifiably alarmed. The 2023 screenwriters' strike in Hollywood led to a limited win opposing the application of AI. And although top stars' opinions on Norwood have received broad coverage, as always it is less influential people whose jobs are most at risk – 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. As yet, Norwood can’t act or interact. She can’t empathise, because, it hardly needs to be said, she is not a person. She is not “art” either; she is data. The human connection is the true magic of movies, and that cannot be replicated by machines. We view movies to observe actual individuals in authentic settings, experiencing genuine feelings. We do not want perfect vibes.
Yet, even if cautions about Norwood being a grave risk to movies are inflated, for now at least, that isn't to say there are no threats. Regulations are delayed and cumbersome, even as tech evolves rapidly. More must be done to protect performers and film crews, and the worth of human inventiveness.
