By now, you would have heard the name Tilly Norwood. The AI-generated actor with childlike features, who speaks with a plum in her mouth. Reading the accounts online, you're told that agents are lining up to sign her and directors everywhere are ready and waiting to hire her.
But I don't want to watch an AI-generated actor. I have no interest, and frankly I don't see the point.
When I think of some of my favourite films, they could not be what they are without the people in them.
When I think of some of my favourite films, they could not be what they are without the people in them. Cynthia Erivo was irreplaceable in Bad Times at the El Royale. Her quivering, raw and desperate vocals told an entire story of their own. In Ondine, the truth in Colin Farrell's wistful, heartbroken eyes could only come from someone who has also genuinely struggled with addiction. Diane Keaton is surely the only person who could have brought the requisite level of neuroses to The First Wives Club — it would have been a different film without her.
Art is not simply paint on a canvas, a photograph on paper, pictures on film strip. Art is informed by its context, a summation of the human experiences of the creator. Any student of drama knows this. Seminal theatre director and theorist Stanislavski built an entire process that hinges on humanity. His practices dictate that acting requires emotional recall and sense memory to inform a performance and deliver realism. Human experience is critical to acting as a profession.
View this post on Instagram
I'm not alone in my assertion. The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) released a statement about Norwood. It says that Tilly Norwood "is not an actor, it's a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers.
"It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion and, from what we've seen, audiences aren't interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience," the statement said.
Truthfully, what is acting without experience? What kind of performance can we hope to garner from an image that was generated by a code made up of 1s and 0s? I'd argue it's not acting at all. It's hollow, ill-informed and could never move us in the way that true human experience can. It's not possible to connect with awe or sadness that has never actually been felt.
It's not possible to connect with awe or sadness that has never actually been felt.
What intimacy could ever come from a program that has never genuinely experienced emotion? Film and cinema is an art form, and ultimately there is no art without humanity. The existence of an AI actor is one giant paradox.
The purpose of technology and innovation is to aid in human advancement. To meet our needs and solve our problems. Looking back to the earliest forms of technological advancement, tools like chisels and hammers made it easier to access food and build shelter, thus improving the way we live. Modern examples like computers, cameras and phones all help us enrich our daily experiences and make our day-to-day easier. Even generative AI can (when used ethically) assist us in improving and extending our own abilities. Ultimately, AI is supposed to make our standard of living better. Not to rob us of our cultural wealth. Whose life is made better by robots taking up space in one of our most coveted and revered art forms?
Whose life is made better by robots taking up space in one of our most coveted and revered art forms?
The arts are not a frivolous "nice-to-have". Our history is written in the arts. They are a vehicle for social change, a platform for words unheard. While the loudest voices in the room dominate politics and media, the arts are a microphone for our collective conscience. A way to capture and taste the social tone of a moment in time. They are the threads that connects us all through the beauty and brutality of human experience. No one is served by robots and programs hijacking this essential space.
In the short term, it looks like a win for corporate-owned production companies, for whom Tilly Norwood is very convenient. She was not just plucked from thin air.
She is an amalgamation of what were deemed the "best" parts of hundreds of stolen faces and voices, then merged into what a computer thinks a person should be.
She is an amalgamation of what were deemed the "best" parts of hundreds of stolen faces and voices, then merged into what a computer thinks a person should be. An AI has done this without the consent of those whose likeness was stolen.
The result? A woman whose hair always looks perfect without styling. Whose skin never has blemishes. She doesn’t take sick days. She doesn’t require an intimacy coordinator. She doesn’t care about pay parity with her co-stars. She is a patriarchal dreamboat. A beautiful, youthful woman without needs, emotions or aspirations of her own. Who's image you can use without having to worry about something as pesky as comfort or consent.
But films and TV exist for human consumption, and we can't and don't want to connect with a person that's not a person. Movies are made and broken by the formidable character and star power of the people that are in them. And if there are no people, what's the point?
Feature image: Tilly Norwood
