Tilly Norwood: She’s Not Art, She Is Data.
The risk technology poses to human creative expression moved a step nearer in recent days through the introduction of the digital performer Tilly Norwood, the pioneer completely synthesized by artificial intelligence. As expected, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering in a comic sketch called AI Commissioner sparked controversy. Emily Blunt described the film as “terrifying” while the performers' union Sag-Aftra denounced it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
Numerous issues surround Norwood, especially the signal her “approachable” persona sends to female youth. However, the deeper issue is the construction of her face using real actors' likenesses without their knowledge or consent. Her cheerful introduction conceals the reality that she embodies an innovative system for producing media that ignores traditional standards and legal frameworks governing artists and their work.
Hollywood has been anticipating Norwood’s arrival for some time. Movies like the 2002 science fiction film Simone, depicting a director who designs an ideal actress digitally, and 2013’s The Congress, featuring a veteran star being digitally captured by her production company, turned out to be incredibly forward-thinking. Last year's shocker 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. Today, much like Victor Frankenstein, cinema faces its “perfect actress”.
Norwood’s creator, the actor and writer Eline Van der Velden defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, but “a piece of art”, portraying AI as a fresh instrument, similar to a brush. As per its supporters, AI will make filmmaking democratic, as all individuals can create films without major studio backing.
From the Gutenberg press to talkies and TV, each innovative shift has been dreaded and denounced. The visual effects Oscar hasn't always existed, of course. And AI is already part of film-making, especially in animation and sci-fi genres. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – The Brutalist and Emilia Perez – employed AI to improve vocal qualities. Dead actors including Carrie Fisher have been resurrected for posthumous cameos.
But while some welcome such possibilities, as well as the prospect of AI actors slashing production costs by 90%, film industry staff have valid reasons for worry. 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, once again, it's the lesser-known workers whose positions are most threatened – supporting and voice artists, beauticians and production staff.
AI thespians are a sure result of a world saturated with online trash, surgical enhancements and falsehood. 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 is impossible to fabricate artificially. We watch films to see real people in real locations, feeling real emotions. We are not seeking ideal impressions.
However, although alerts that Norwood poses a wide-eyed danger to cinema may be overblown, currently, anyway, that does not imply there is no reason for concern. Legislation is slow and clunky, while technology advances dizzyingly fast. More must be done to protect performers and film crews, and the importance of human imaginative power.
