The AI Actress Tilly Norwood: She Isn't Art, She’s Data.
The risk technology poses to human creative expression advanced another step this week through the introduction of the digital performer Tilly Norwood, the first 100% AI-generated actor. As expected, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering in a comic sketch called AI Commissioner provoked strong reactions. Emily Blunt labeled the movie “terrifying” and Sag-Aftra, the actors' guild, criticized it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
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 is the construction of her face using real actors' likenesses without their knowledge or consent. Her lighthearted debut masks the fact that she is part of a new model of media production that rides roughshod over longstanding norms and laws 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, and the 2013 production The Congress, featuring a veteran star being digitally captured by her production company, 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, 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 defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, rather “an artistic creation”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. Based on proponents' views, artificial intelligence will open up film production, because anyone can produce movies absent a large studio's assets.
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. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is already involved in movie production, especially in animation and sci-fi genres. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – used AI to enhance voices. Dead actors including Carrie Fisher have been resurrected for posthumous cameos.
Yet, even as certain parties accept these prospects, along with the idea of AI performers reducing production expenses drastically, film industry staff have valid reasons for worry. 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. At present, Norwood is unable to act or communicate. She cannot relate emotionally, for, clearly, she is not a real being. 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 view movies to observe actual individuals in authentic settings, experiencing genuine feelings. We do not want perfect vibes.
Yet, even if cautions about Norwood being a grave risk to movies are inflated, at least for the moment, that isn't to say there are no threats. Regulations are delayed and cumbersome, while technology advances dizzyingly fast. Further measures are needed to defend artists and cinematic staff, and the importance of human imaginative power.
