Tilly Norwood: She Isn't Art, She Is Data.
The threat to human creativity from technology advanced another step in recent days with the appearance of Tilly Norwood, the pioneer completely synthesized by artificial intelligence. Unsurprisingly, her premiere at the Zurich film event via a light-hearted piece named 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. Yet the graver concern is the construction of her face using real actors' likenesses absent their permission or notification. Her cheerful introduction conceals the reality that she represents a fresh approach to media creation that ignores traditional standards and legal frameworks governing artists and their work.
The film industry has long expected Norwood's emergence. Films such as the 2002 sci-fi Simone, depicting a director who designs an ideal actress digitally, and 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, starring Demi Moore as a waning celebrity who spawns a younger clone, 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 justified her as “not a substitute for a real person”, instead “a work of art”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. Based on proponents' views, AI will democratise film, 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. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is already involved in movie production, primarily in cartoon and sci-fi types. A pair of last year's Academy Award-winning movies – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – utilized artificial intelligence to refine 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, film industry staff have valid reasons for worry. The writers' strike of 2023 achieved a halfway success against the use 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.
Digital performers are a natural outcome of a society flooded with social media junk, plastic surgery and deceit. As yet, Norwood can’t act or interact. She can’t empathise, because, it hardly needs to be said, she is not a person. She isn't “art” as well; she is pure information. The human connection is the true magic of movies, and that is impossible to fabricate artificially. We watch films to see real people in real locations, feeling real emotions. We do not want perfect vibes.
However, although alerts that Norwood poses a wide-eyed danger to cinema may be overblown, for now at least, that does not imply there is no reason for concern. Laws are sluggish and awkward, even as tech evolves rapidly. More must be done to protect performers and film crews, and the worth of human inventiveness.