The AI Actress Tilly Norwood: She Is Not Artistic, She’s Data.
Technology's challenge to human creativity took another step closer in recent days with the appearance of Tilly Norwood, the inaugural fully AI-created actor. Unsurprisingly, her unveiling at the Zurich film festival within a humorous short titled AI Commissioner caused an outcry. The film was called “terrifying” by Emily Blunt and the actors’ union Sag-Aftra condemned it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
Many concerns arise with Norwood, especially the signal her “approachable” persona sends to female youth. Yet the graver concern 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 rides roughshod over longstanding norms and laws overseeing artists and their creations.
Tinseltown has foreseen Norwood's debut for years. Films such as the 2002 sci-fi Simone, depicting a director who designs an ideal actress digitally, and the 2013 production The Congress, in which an ageing star is digitally scanned by her studio, were remarkably prescient. 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. Currently, in a Frankenstein-esque turn, the movie industry confronts the “ideal actress”.
Norwood’s creator, the actor and writer Eline Van der Velden justified her as “not a substitute for a real person”, but “a piece of art”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. Based on proponents' views, AI will make filmmaking democratic, as all individuals can create films without major studio backing.
Beginning with the printing press to audible movies and TV, 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 films that won Oscars recently – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – used AI to enhance voices. Dead actors including Carrie Fisher have been resurrected for posthumous cameos.
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 2023 Hollywood writers’ strike resulted in a partial victory resisting the deployment of artificial intelligence. 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.
AI actors are an inevitable product of a culture awash with social media slop, cosmetic surgery and fakery. As yet, Norwood can’t act or interact. She cannot relate emotionally, for, clearly, she is not a real being. She is not “artistic” too; she is merely data. The human connection is the true magic of movies, and that cannot be artificially generated. We watch films to see real people in real locations, feeling real emotions. We are not seeking ideal impressions.
Yet, even if cautions about Norwood being a grave risk to movies are inflated, for now at least, 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 value of human creativity.