Meet Tilly Norwood: She Is Not Artistic, She Represents Data.
The threat to human creativity from technology moved a step nearer in recent days through the introduction of this AI-generated actress, the pioneer completely synthesized by artificial intelligence. Predictably, her unveiling at the Zurich film festival within a humorous short titled AI Commissioner sparked controversy. The film was called “terrifying” by Emily Blunt while the performers' union Sag-Aftra denounced it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
Numerous issues surround Norwood, not least the message her “girl-next-door vibe” sends to young women. Yet the graver concern is that her face has been made from those of real actors lacking their awareness or approval. 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.
The film industry has long expected Norwood's emergence. Films such as the 2002 sci-fi Simone, about a film director who creates the perfect actress on a computer, along with 2013's The Congress, in which an ageing star is digitally scanned by her studio, turned out to be incredibly forward-thinking. Last year's shocker The Substance, featuring Demi Moore as a declining famous person who creates a younger replica, also ridiculed Hollywood's preoccupation with young age and good looks. Now, Victor Frankenstein-like, the film world is staring the “perfect actress” in the face.
The maker of Norwood, performer and author Eline Van der Velden supported her by saying she is “not taking a human's place”, but “a piece of art”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. As per its supporters, AI will democratise film, since everyone will be able to make movies without the resources of a big studio.
Beginning with the printing press to audible movies and TV, every artistic upheaval has faced fear and criticism. 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 films that won Oscars recently – The Brutalist along with Emilia Perez – employed AI to improve vocal qualities. Dead actors including Carrie Fisher have been resurrected for posthumous cameos.
Yet, even as certain parties accept these prospects, and the potential for AI thespians to cut filming budgets significantly, film industry staff have valid reasons for worry. The 2023 Hollywood writers’ strike resulted in a partial victory opposing the application of AI. And while A-listers’ views on Norwood have been widely reported, typically it is the less powerful individuals whose employment is most endangered – 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. Currently, Norwood cannot perform or engage. She lacks empathy, since, obviously, she isn't human. She isn't “art” as well; she is pure information. Real cinematic magic comes from human interaction, 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.
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. Regulations are delayed and cumbersome, whereas technology progresses at a staggering pace. More must be done to protect performers and film crews, and the value of human creativity.
