Tilly Norwood: She Is Not Artistic, She Represents Data.
The risk technology poses to human creative expression moved a step nearer recently with the appearance 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. Emily Blunt labeled the movie “terrifying” while the performers' union Sag-Aftra denounced it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
Numerous issues surround Norwood, especially the signal her “approachable” persona sends to female youth. But the more serious point 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 regulating creators and their output.
The film industry has long expected Norwood's emergence. Films such as the 2002 sci-fi Simone, centered on a filmmaker crafting a flawless actress via computer, along with 2013's The Congress, in which an ageing star is digitally scanned by her studio, 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. Today, much like Victor Frankenstein, cinema faces its “perfect actress”.
Norwood’s creator, the actor and writer Eline Van der Velden supported her by saying she is “not taking a human's place”, but “a piece of art”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. Based on proponents' views, AI will make filmmaking democratic, since everyone will be able to make movies without the resources of a big studio.
Beginning with the printing press to audible movies and TV, every artistic upheaval has faced fear and criticism. An Oscar for visual effects wasn't always available, remember. Plus, AI is already integrated into cinema, especially in animation and sci-fi genres. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – The Brutalist and Emilia Perez – used AI to enhance voices. Dead actors including Carrie Fisher have been resurrected for posthumous cameos.
Yet, even as certain parties accept these prospects, along with the idea of AI performers reducing production expenses drastically, film industry staff have valid reasons for worry. The 2023 screenwriters' strike in Hollywood led to a limited win resisting the deployment of artificial intelligence. And while A-listers’ views on Norwood have been widely reported, as always it is less influential people whose jobs are most at risk – extras and vocal performers, cosmetic experts and crew members.
AI thespians are a sure result of a world saturated with online trash, surgical enhancements and falsehood. At present, Norwood is unable to act or communicate. She lacks empathy, since, obviously, she isn't human. She is not “art” either; she is data. The genuine enchantment of films lies in human connection, and that is impossible to fabricate artificially. We view movies to observe actual individuals in authentic settings, experiencing genuine feelings. We are not seeking ideal impressions.
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. Regulations are delayed and cumbersome, while technology advances dizzyingly fast. Additional actions are required to safeguard actors and production teams, and the importance of human imaginative power.
