Meet Tilly Norwood: She Isn't Art, She’s Data.
Technology's challenge to human creativity took another step closer recently with the appearance of the digital performer Tilly Norwood, the pioneer completely synthesized by artificial intelligence. Predictably, 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 while the performers' union Sag-Aftra denounced it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
Many concerns arise with Norwood, especially the signal her “approachable” persona sends to female youth. But the more serious point is that her face has been made from those of real actors lacking their awareness or approval. Her playful premiere obscures the truth that she is part of a new model of media production that ignores traditional standards and legal frameworks 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, along with 2013's 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, 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 defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, instead “a work of art”, portraying AI as a fresh instrument, similar to a brush. According to its advocates, AI will make filmmaking democratic, since everyone will be able to make movies without the resources of a big studio.
From the Gutenberg press to talkies and TV, all creative revolutions have been feared and reviled. An Oscar for visual effects wasn't always available, remember. And AI is already part of film-making, especially in animation and sci-fi genres. A pair of last year's Academy Award-winning movies – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – used AI to enhance voices. Dead actors including Carrie Fisher have been resurrected for posthumous cameos.
But while some welcome such possibilities, along with the idea of AI performers reducing production expenses drastically, employees in the cinematic field are rightly concerned. The 2023 screenwriters' strike in Hollywood led to a limited win opposing the application of AI. And while A-listers’ views on Norwood have been widely reported, once again, it's the lesser-known workers whose positions are most threatened – 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 “art” either; she is data. 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 don't desire flawless atmospheres.
But while warnings that Norwood is a doe-eyed existential threat to the film industry might be exaggerated, for now at least, that isn't to say there are no threats. Legislation is slow and clunky, whereas technology progresses at a staggering pace. Further measures are needed to defend artists and cinematic staff, and the worth of human inventiveness.
