Tilly Norwood: She Is Not Artistic, She’s Data.

Technology's challenge to human creativity advanced another step in recent days with the appearance of this AI-generated actress, the inaugural fully AI-created actor. As expected, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering within a humorous short titled AI Commissioner sparked controversy. Emily Blunt labeled the movie “terrifying” and Sag-Aftra, the actors' guild, criticized it for “endangering actors' incomes and undermining human artistic value”.

Many concerns arise with Norwood, especially the signal her “approachable” persona sends to female youth. Yet the graver concern is the construction of her face using real actors' likenesses without their knowledge or consent. 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. Movies like the 2002 science fiction film Simone, centered on a filmmaker crafting a flawless actress via computer, 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, with Demi Moore as a fading star who generates a youthful duplicate, similarly satirised the industry’s obsession with youth and beauty. Today, much like Victor Frankenstein, cinema faces its “perfect actress”.

Norwood’s creator, the actor and writer Eline Van der Velden supported her by saying she is “not taking a human's place”, instead “a work of art”, portraying AI as a fresh instrument, similar to a brush. 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. And AI is already part of film-making, primarily in cartoon and sci-fi types. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – used AI to enhance voices. Late actors like Carrie Fisher have been brought back for roles after their passing.

However, although some embrace these opportunities, and the potential for AI thespians to cut filming budgets significantly, film industry staff have valid reasons for worry. The 2023 screenwriters' strike in Hollywood led to a limited win resisting the deployment of artificial intelligence. 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.

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 lacks empathy, since, obviously, she isn't human. She is not “artistic” too; she is merely data. The genuine enchantment of films lies in human connection, and that cannot be artificially generated. We view movies to observe actual individuals in authentic settings, experiencing genuine feelings. We don't desire flawless atmospheres.

But while warnings that Norwood is a doe-eyed existential threat to the film industry might be exaggerated, currently, anyway, that isn't to say there are no threats. Laws are sluggish and awkward, while technology advances dizzyingly fast. Further measures are needed to defend artists and cinematic staff, and the importance of human imaginative power.