Tilly Norwood: She Isn't Art, She Represents Data.
The risk technology poses to human creative expression advanced another step this week with the appearance of this AI-generated actress, the inaugural fully AI-created actor. As expected, her premiere at the Zurich film event in a comic sketch called AI Commissioner provoked strong reactions. Emily Blunt labeled the movie “terrifying” and the actors’ union Sag-Aftra condemned it for “endangering actors' incomes and undermining human artistic value”.
Numerous issues surround Norwood, including the implications of her “girl-next-door” image for young women. However, the deeper issue is the construction of her face using real actors' likenesses lacking their awareness or approval. Her lighthearted debut masks the fact that she is part of a new model of media production which disregards established conventions and regulations governing artists and their work.
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, and the 2013 production The Congress, featuring a veteran star being digitally captured by her production company, proved strikingly prophetic. The recent body horror film 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. Currently, in a Frankenstein-esque turn, the movie industry confronts the “ideal actress”.
Norwood's originator, the actress and scribe Eline Van der Velden defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, instead “a work of art”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. As per its supporters, artificial intelligence will open up film production, 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, all creative revolutions have been feared and reviled. An Oscar for visual effects wasn't always available, remember. Plus, AI is already integrated into cinema, notably in animated and science fiction categories. A pair of last year's Academy Award-winning movies – The Brutalist along with 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%, workers in the film industry are justifiably alarmed. The 2023 Hollywood writers’ strike resulted in a partial victory resisting the deployment of artificial intelligence. And even as leading celebrities' thoughts on Norwood are well-documented, 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.
But while warnings that Norwood is a doe-eyed existential threat to the film industry might be exaggerated, currently, anyway, that does not imply there is no reason for concern. Legislation is slow and clunky, whereas technology progresses at a staggering pace. More must be done to protect performers and film crews, and the value of human creativity.
