<\/p>\n
An AI “actress” named Tilly Norwood has caused quite a stir lately, widely seen as an attempt to take opportunities away from working actors in place of a digital entity.<\/p>\n
Per Variety<\/a>, Norwood’s creator Eline Van der Velden said in July she wanted Norwood \u201cto be the next Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman.\u201d<\/p>\n As comical as it sounds for a computer-generated person to attain stardom reserved for tangible movie stars who people can actually related with and watch genuinely emote on the big screen, the arrival of Norwood does present a troubling alternative for how companies use human likeness in certain forms of art and marketing.<\/p>\n Norwood isn’t real in the sense that Johansson and Portman are, of course. However, the AI “actress” could still wind up taking opportunities from real-life actors who depend on their craft for their livelihoods.<\/p>\n Let’s break down exactly what’s going on with Norwood, why there’s so much controversy surrounding the AI creation’s rise and how Norwood’s creator feels about the backlash.<\/p>\n Norwood is an AI-generated “actress.” She was created by AI talent studio Xicoia, a spin-off from Van der Velden’s AI-geared production company Particle6, per Variety<\/a>.<\/p>\n Van der Velden alleges<\/a> that Norwood has attracted attention from “multiple” talent agents and hinted that studios were moving forward with AI-focused productions.<\/p>\n Norwood appeared in a “comedy” sketch called “AI Commissioner” that debuted over the summer from Particle6.<\/p>\n SAG-AFTRA spoke for the community of actors repelled by the invention of Norwood, saying that she’s not an actual actor.<\/p>\n \u201cTo be clear, \u2018Tilly Norwood\u2019 is not an actor, it\u2019s a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers \u2014 without permission or compensation,\u201d SAG-AFTRA stated, per Variety<\/a>. \u201cIt has no life experience to draw from, no emotion and, from what we\u2019ve seen, audiences aren\u2019t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience. It doesn\u2019t solve any \u2018problem\u2019 \u2014 it creates the problem of using stolen performances to put actors out of work, jeopardizing performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry.\u201d<\/p>\n Other actors have reacted negatively<\/a> to Norwood’s introduction, including Emily Blunt who called Norwood<\/a> “really, really scary.”<\/p>\n Van der Velden tried to push back on the immense outrage at Norwood’s creation, however unconvincingly.<\/p>\n \u201cTo those who have expressed anger over the creation of my AI character, Tilly Norwood, she is not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work \u2013 a piece of art. Like many forms of art before her, she sparks conversation, and that in itself shows the power of creativity,\u201d Van der Velden said in a statement, per Deadline<\/a>.<\/p>\n It’s highly unlikely audiences will flock to Norwood as the next up-and-coming movie star. It’s a bit laughable. In an era where real young movie stars are emerging and creating box office buzz like Timoth\u00e9e Chalamet, Zendaya, Sydney Sweeney, Glen Powell, Jenna Ortega and Austin Butler, a Norwood doesn’t make any sense.<\/p>\n People feel connected to people; Norwood is a character, not unlike Mickey Mouse or SpongeBob SquarePants. It’s a gimmick to get people interested in the advancements AI has made to appear “real,” even if most people can still spot the difference. AI slop has become predominant on social media, and people do get tricked from time to time.<\/p>\n However, Tilly Norwood is much less likely to come for a major actor’s work than a working actor who pays their bills by appearing in commercials or as a background actor in film and television productions. It’s not hard to imagine a future where Norwood is selling chewing gum or car insurance, or a future where Norwood shows up as a gimmick in the background of a MTV show. Saving money on hiring working actors is probably part of the draw for Norwood.<\/p>\n It’s plausible some low-brow films or shows could incorporate Norwood into their plots as an “actress,” like in one of those direct-to-DVD Asylum knockoff of a blockbuster movie. Any SAG-AFTRA-approved production would likely boycott any project that uses an AI entity like Norwood, making its prospects limited as guilds still excerpt a good bit of power in the studio system. Any Norwood product would have to be outside the bounds of what an industry guild would approve.<\/p>\n Right now, Norwood is a gimmick, and an eerie one at that. Actors have a right to balk at the creation, but its limitations in usage will stem from likely audience disinterest past the initial gimmick and guild lockdowns on productions that consider using an AI “actor” in a project. For now, Norwood is a computer curio, not a harbinger of doom for the movie or television star, but definitely an entity that could eventually take jobs from working actors.<\/p>\nWhat is a Tilly Norwood?<\/h2>\n
What’s the backlash over Tilly Norwood from actresses like Emily Blunt?<\/h2>\n
What’s the response from Norwood’s creator?<\/h2>\n
What’s the endgame with Norwood?<\/h2>\n