The AI Actress Tilly Norwood: She Isn't Art, She Is Data.
The risk technology poses to human creative expression moved a step nearer recently via the debut of Tilly Norwood, the pioneer completely synthesized by artificial intelligence. Predictably, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering via a light-hearted piece named AI Commissioner caused an outcry. Emily Blunt described the film as “terrifying” while the performers' union Sag-Aftra denounced it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
Many concerns arise with Norwood, including the implications of her “girl-next-door” image for young women. But the more serious point involves her facial features being derived from actual performers without their knowledge or consent. Her lighthearted debut masks the fact that she represents a fresh approach to media creation which disregards established conventions and regulations regulating creators and their output.
Hollywood has been anticipating Norwood’s arrival for some time. Movies like the 2002 science fiction film Simone, about a film director who creates the perfect actress on a computer, along with 2013's The Congress, where an aging celebrity undergoes digital replication by her studio, were remarkably prescient. Last year's shocker The Substance, starring Demi Moore as a waning celebrity who spawns a younger clone, similarly satirised the industry’s obsession with youth and beauty. Now, Victor Frankenstein-like, the film world is staring the “perfect actress” in the face.
Norwood’s creator, the actor and writer Eline Van der Velden justified her as “not a substitute for a real person”, rather “an artistic creation”, portraying AI as a fresh instrument, similar to a brush. According to its advocates, artificial intelligence will open up film production, since everyone will be able to make movies without the resources of a big studio.
From the Gutenberg press to talkies and TV, each innovative shift has been dreaded and denounced. The visual effects Oscar hasn't always existed, of course. And AI is already part of film-making, especially in animation and sci-fi genres. A pair of last year's Academy Award-winning movies – The Brutalist along with Emilia Perez – utilized artificial intelligence to refine voices. Dead actors including Carrie Fisher have been resurrected for posthumous cameos.
But while some welcome such possibilities, along with the idea of AI performers reducing production expenses drastically, film industry staff have valid reasons for worry. The 2023 Hollywood writers’ strike resulted in a partial victory opposing the application of AI. And while A-listers’ views on Norwood have been widely reported, 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. 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 cannot be replicated by machines. We view movies to observe actual individuals in authentic settings, experiencing genuine feelings. We don't desire flawless atmospheres.
However, although alerts that Norwood poses a wide-eyed danger to cinema may be overblown, for now at least, that isn't to say there are no threats. Legislation is slow and clunky, whereas technology progresses at a staggering pace. More must be done to protect performers and film crews, and the worth of human inventiveness.
