Tilly Norwood: She Is Not Artistic, She Represents Data.
Technology's challenge to human creativity advanced another step in recent days via the debut of the digital performer Tilly Norwood, the inaugural fully AI-created actor. Unsurprisingly, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering within a humorous short titled AI Commissioner sparked controversy. Emily Blunt described the film as “terrifying” while the performers' union Sag-Aftra denounced it as “threatening artists' careers and cheapening human creativity”.
Numerous issues surround Norwood, not least the message her “girl-next-door vibe” sends to young women. But the more serious point is the construction of her face using real actors' likenesses without their knowledge or consent. Her cheerful introduction conceals the reality that she represents a fresh approach to media creation which disregards established conventions and regulations governing artists and their work.
Hollywood has been anticipating Norwood’s arrival for some time. Films such as the 2002 sci-fi Simone, centered on a filmmaker crafting a flawless actress via computer, and the 2013 production The Congress, where an aging celebrity undergoes digital replication by her studio, proved strikingly prophetic. Last year’s body horror The Substance, with Demi Moore as a fading star who generates a youthful duplicate, similarly satirised the industry’s obsession with youth and beauty. Today, much like Victor Frankenstein, cinema faces its “perfect actress”.
Norwood's originator, the actress and scribe Eline Van der Velden defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, instead “a work of art”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. As per its supporters, artificial intelligence will open up film production, as all individuals can create films without major studio backing.
Beginning with the printing press to audible movies 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, notably in animated and science fiction categories. Two films that won Oscars recently – The Brutalist along with Emilia Perez – used AI to enhance voices. Dead actors including Carrie Fisher have been resurrected for posthumous cameos.
But while some welcome such possibilities, and the potential for AI thespians to cut filming budgets significantly, employees in the cinematic field are rightly concerned. The 2023 Hollywood writers’ strike resulted in a partial victory 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 – background and voice actors, makeup artists and production teams.
AI thespians are a sure result of a world saturated with online trash, surgical enhancements and falsehood. Currently, Norwood cannot perform or engage. 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 are not seeking ideal impressions.
But while warnings that Norwood is a doe-eyed existential threat to the film industry might be exaggerated, at least for the moment, that doesn’t mean there is nothing to fear. Legislation is slow and clunky, while technology advances dizzyingly fast. Further measures are needed to defend artists and cinematic staff, and the worth of human inventiveness.
