What do the names ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Tilly Norwood have in common? They are all names related to the widely reviled generative AI trend. But while ChatGPT is considered a search engine, Tilly Norwood is, in theory, an actress.
Tilly Norwood is not a real person; it is an AI-generated actress created by Xicoia, the AI division of a production company founded by actress and producer Eline Van der Velden. From the day the first film crediting Norwood came out, the program has been the subject of much criticism.Â
The film was a comedy sketch generated entirely by AI and written by ChatGPT. Critics called the writing sloppy and unfunny, and highlighted Norwood’s uncanny and inhuman movements. But the criticism did not deter Xicoia, and by October, they were looking to sign Norwood to talent agencies.
Recently, Van der Velden claimed that talent agencies were interested in signing Norwood; a statement exaggerated in Deadline’s article. In response, several talent agencies, including WME and Gersh, stated that they would not represent Norwood, with Richard Weinz, WME chairman, stating “If she has a future, it won’t be at WME. We represent humans.” In a statement released by SAG-AFTRA, they declare that Norwood is not an actress, but merely a program with no emotions or life experiences to draw from.
The backlash from the rest of Hollywood has been strong, with multiple big names in the industry speaking out against Norwood, including Emily Blunt, Whoopi Goldberg, and Melissa Barrera.Â
Van der Velden’s response claimed that Norwood was a creative work, not a replacement for humans, saying that “she sparks conversation, and that in itself shows the power of creativity.”
A component of Norwood that I would like to question is the choice to generate her as a her. Specifically, why is the first high-profile AI actor generated to look like a pretty young woman, who can be made to do anything on account of being computer generated, and therefore, not a real person who can object to something, or need protections? An article for The Free Press highlights Norwood as the go-to actress “if you wish to see a virgin on-screen,” so clearly not everyone has boarded the anti-AI train.
I would also like to call Van der Velden’s claims about Norwood demonstrating the power of creativity into question. While Norwood has undoubtedly sparked conversations, she does not hold the power of creativity. The statement released by SAG-AFTRA highlights how Norwood was trained on the work of professional performers, “without permission or compensation.”Â
The fact that generative AI steals the content of real artists is the crux of anti-generative AI arguments. When asked to draw a picture or write a story, generative AI can only repeat and remix the content fed into it. What does that give us? Stories with nothing to say, and art with no soul. It’s not a coincidence that the rise in low-effort AI-generated media is called “AI slop.”
Norwood, just like other forms of generative AI, cannot truly create anything new; they can only regurgitate what it’s learned. As an actor, Norwood cannot draw on its previous experiences to fuel a scene and project its emotions onto an audience. “AI Commissioner,” the sketch starring Norwood (and other nameless AI-generated “actors”) received negative reviews from many critics, and the YouTube comments are filled with even more negative commentary on the quality of the sketch.
In a LinkedIn post, Van der Velden claims, “Audiences? They care about the story — not whether the star has a pulse.” But clearly, audiences can tell when a work of art is devoid of human creativity, and they’re not impressed. In order to tell a human story, you need a human pulse.