The AI Actress Tilly Norwood: She’s Not Art, She Is Data.
The threat to human creativity from technology moved a step nearer recently through the introduction of Tilly Norwood, the pioneer completely synthesized by artificial intelligence. As expected, her premiere at the Zurich film event via a light-hearted piece named AI Commissioner sparked controversy. Emily Blunt labeled the movie “terrifying” and Sag-Aftra, the actors' guild, criticized it as “threatening artists' careers and cheapening human creativity”.
Numerous issues surround Norwood, especially the signal her “approachable” persona sends to female youth. However, the deeper issue involves her facial features being derived from actual performers absent their permission or notification. Her cheerful introduction conceals the reality that she represents a fresh approach to media creation that ignores traditional standards and legal frameworks overseeing artists and their creations.
Hollywood has been anticipating Norwood’s arrival for some time. Features including the 2002 sci-fi tale Simone, depicting a director who designs an ideal actress digitally, and the 2013 production The Congress, where an aging celebrity undergoes digital replication by her studio, turned out to be incredibly forward-thinking. Last year's shocker The Substance, with Demi Moore as a fading star who generates a youthful duplicate, also ridiculed Hollywood's preoccupation with young age and good looks. Today, much like Victor Frankenstein, cinema faces its “perfect actress”.
The maker of Norwood, performer and author Eline Van der Velden justified her as “not a substitute for a real person”, but “a piece of art”, portraying AI as a fresh instrument, similar to a brush. Based on proponents' views, 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, all creative revolutions have been feared and reviled. There wasn’t always an Oscar for visual effects, after all. And AI is already part of film-making, primarily in cartoon and sci-fi types. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – The Brutalist along with Emilia Perez – employed AI to improve vocal qualities. Deceased performers such as Carrie Fisher have been revived for after-death appearances.
Yet, even as certain parties accept these prospects, as well as the prospect of AI actors slashing production costs by 90%, employees in the cinematic field are rightly concerned. The writers' strike of 2023 achieved a halfway success against the use of AI. And although top stars' opinions on Norwood have received broad coverage, once again, it's the lesser-known workers whose positions are most threatened – background and voice actors, makeup artists and production teams.
Digital performers are a natural outcome of a society flooded with social media junk, plastic surgery and deceit. Currently, Norwood cannot perform or engage. She cannot relate emotionally, for, clearly, she is not a real being. She isn't “art” as well; she is pure information. The genuine enchantment of films lies in human connection, and that cannot be artificially generated. We view movies to observe actual individuals in authentic settings, experiencing genuine feelings. We do not want perfect vibes.
But while warnings that Norwood is a doe-eyed existential threat to the film industry might be exaggerated, for now at least, that doesn’t mean there is nothing to fear. Laws are sluggish and awkward, whereas technology progresses at a staggering pace. Further measures are needed to defend artists and cinematic staff, and the worth of human inventiveness.
