The AI Actress Tilly Norwood: She’s Not Art, She Represents Data.
The risk technology poses to human creative expression took another step closer this week with the appearance of Tilly Norwood, the pioneer completely synthesized by artificial intelligence. Predictably, her premiere at the Zurich film event via a light-hearted piece named AI Commissioner provoked strong reactions. Emily Blunt described the film as “terrifying” and Sag-Aftra, the actors' guild, criticized it as “threatening artists' careers and cheapening human creativity”.
Many concerns arise with Norwood, including the implications of her “girl-next-door” image for young women. Yet the graver concern involves her facial features being derived from actual performers lacking their awareness or approval. Her cheerful introduction conceals the reality that she embodies an innovative system for producing media 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, about a film director who creates the perfect actress on a computer, and 2013’s The Congress, where an aging celebrity undergoes digital replication by her studio, turned out to be incredibly forward-thinking. Last year’s body horror 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. Currently, in a Frankenstein-esque turn, the movie industry confronts the “ideal actress”.
The maker of Norwood, performer and author Eline Van der Velden defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, but “a piece of art”, describing AI as a new tool, like a paintbrush. Based on proponents' views, AI will democratise film, as all individuals can create films without major studio backing.
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 and Emilia Perez – used AI to enhance voices. Deceased performers such as Carrie Fisher have been revived for after-death appearances.
However, although some embrace these opportunities, 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 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. As yet, Norwood can’t act or interact. 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 replicated by machines. We watch films to see real people in real locations, feeling real emotions. We do not want perfect vibes.
However, although alerts that Norwood poses a wide-eyed danger to cinema may be overblown, at least for the moment, that isn't to say there are no threats. Legislation is slow and clunky, while technology advances dizzyingly fast. Further measures are needed to defend artists and cinematic staff, and the value of human creativity.
