Meet Tilly Norwood: She Is Not Artistic, She Represents Data.
Technology's challenge to human creativity advanced another step this week with the appearance of this AI-generated actress, the inaugural fully AI-created actor. As expected, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering via a light-hearted piece named AI Commissioner provoked strong reactions. Emily Blunt labeled the movie “terrifying” and Sag-Aftra, the actors' guild, criticized it for “endangering actors' incomes and undermining human artistic value”.
There is much that is problematic about Norwood, not least the message her “girl-next-door vibe” sends to young women. 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 represents a fresh approach to media creation that ignores traditional standards and legal frameworks regulating creators and their output.
The film industry has long expected Norwood's emergence. Features including the 2002 sci-fi tale Simone, depicting a director who designs an ideal actress digitally, 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, 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 originator, the actress and scribe Eline Van der Velden supported her by saying she is “not taking a human's place”, instead “a work of art”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. 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.
Starting with the Gutenberg press through sound films and television, 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 – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – employed AI to improve vocal qualities. Late actors like Carrie Fisher have been brought back for roles after their passing.
Yet, even as certain parties accept these prospects, along with the idea of AI performers reducing production expenses drastically, employees in the cinematic field are rightly concerned. The 2023 Hollywood writers’ strike resulted in a partial victory against the use of AI. And even as leading celebrities' thoughts on Norwood are well-documented, once again, it's the lesser-known workers whose positions are most threatened – background and voice actors, makeup artists and production teams.
AI actors are an inevitable product of a culture awash with social media slop, cosmetic surgery and fakery. Currently, Norwood cannot perform or engage. She cannot relate emotionally, for, clearly, she is not a real being. She is not “art” either; she is data. Real cinematic magic comes from human interaction, 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, currently, anyway, that doesn’t mean there is nothing to fear. Legislation is slow and clunky, while technology advances dizzyingly fast. More must be done to protect performers and film crews, and the value of human creativity.
