Meet Tilly Norwood: She Is Not Artistic, She Represents Data.

Technology's challenge to human creativity took another step closer recently via the debut of the digital performer Tilly Norwood, the pioneer completely synthesized by artificial intelligence. Unsurprisingly, her premiere at the Zurich film event within a humorous short titled AI Commissioner caused an outcry. Emily Blunt labeled the movie “terrifying” while the performers' union Sag-Aftra denounced it for “endangering actors' incomes and undermining human artistic value”.

Numerous issues surround Norwood, not least the message her “girl-next-door vibe” sends to young women. Yet the graver concern involves her facial features being derived from actual performers absent their permission or notification. Her cheerful introduction conceals the reality that she embodies an innovative system for producing media that rides roughshod over longstanding norms and laws governing artists and their work.

Tinseltown has foreseen Norwood's debut for years. Movies like the 2002 science fiction film Simone, centered on a filmmaker crafting a flawless actress via computer, and 2013’s The Congress, featuring a veteran star being digitally captured by her production company, proved strikingly prophetic. Last year’s body horror The Substance, featuring Demi Moore as a declining famous person who creates a younger replica, also ridiculed Hollywood's preoccupation with young age and good looks. Currently, in a Frankenstein-esque turn, the movie industry confronts the “ideal actress”.

The maker of Norwood, performer and author Eline Van der Velden justified her as “not a substitute for a real person”, rather “an artistic creation”, characterizing artificial intelligence as a novel tool, akin to painting equipment. Based on proponents' views, artificial intelligence will open up film production, because anyone can produce movies absent a large studio's assets.

Starting with the Gutenberg press through sound films and television, every artistic upheaval has faced fear and criticism. There wasn’t always an Oscar for visual effects, after all. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is already involved in movie production, notably in animated and science fiction categories. Two films that won Oscars recently – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – employed AI to improve vocal qualities. Late actors like Carrie Fisher have been brought back for roles after their passing.

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 2023 Hollywood writers’ strike resulted in a partial victory against the use of AI. And although top stars' opinions on Norwood have received broad coverage, as always it is less influential people whose jobs are most at risk – 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. Currently, Norwood cannot perform or engage. 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 artificially generated. We watch films to see real people in real locations, feeling real emotions. We do not want perfect vibes.

Yet, even if cautions about Norwood being a grave risk to movies are inflated, for now at least, that doesn’t mean there is nothing to fear. Legislation is slow and clunky, while technology advances dizzyingly fast. More must be done to protect performers and film crews, and the value of human creativity.