AI Creation Tilly Norwood Isn’t an ‘Actress’ — So Don’t Call Her That

Let’s be frank: everyone thinks they can act. On a weekly basis, I have people ask me about “getting some voice over work for extra money” or doing a show “for fun.” And I have to wonder if any other industry is viewed this way. Do doctors have friends who suggest popping in for a quick organ transplant for kicks? Do relatives ask cops if they can borrow their gun and badge for a day? There’s a reason acting is so aspirational and yet so hard to succeed at.

When stories broke over the weekend about what people are calling the first AI-generated actress, Tilly Norwood, the response from Hollywood was so negative that one really had to wonder what the creators expected. In a time where the industry has been decimated by COVID, strikes and changing business models, who thought this would be celebrated? Celebrities from Kiersey Clemons to Melissa Barrera quickly weighed in, with the former noting: “How gross, read the room.” Perhaps Oscar-nominated actor Toni Collette said it best, when she posted the story with a series of screaming-face emojis.

Let’s put aside the issues of taking already-diminishing jobs from working actors, in addition to the ethical ambiguity of essentially passing animation off as a person. What makes me cringe the most right now is that people have quickly come to label Norwood an AI “actress,” a term that is like Freddy Kruger’s glove on a chalkboard to me. It’s inaccurate, it’s insulting and it’s interesting to note that even her creators don’t refer to her that way. Norwood is the creation of Xicoia, an “AI talent studio” (a contradictory term, really) from Eline Van der Velden, the CEO of London-based tech production company Particle6. In a response to the backlash this morning, Van der Velden said, “To 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 — a piece of art.”

That last claim is a whole other column but the first part caught my eye instantly – even Van der Velden (an actor herself) refers to Norwood as a “creation.” She argues that Norwood is a work of art, “an act of imagination and craftmanship, not unlike drawing a character, writing a role or shaping a performance.”
In which case, we should call Norwood a “creation” or even “an art project,” which I’d be fine with. It’s probably gentler than some of the terms my actor friends suggested this morning, which include: a deepfake, an animated character, a “hamdroid” and – my personal favorite – Grand Theft Automaton.

It can be easy to dismiss the craft of acting – perhaps it should be taken as a compliment that actors make their job look easy. It’s a testament to their talent. But as someone who has been cut out of almost every film and TV role they’ve shot (even when cast as myself!) let me assure you: It Is Not. While some people are gifted with an inherent talent, it requires practice and craft to deliver a great performance. Every great athletes still practice, they don’t just show up on game day. And that craft is informed my many things – empathy, free will and life experience. That’s not something that can’t be built through an algorithm or crowdsourcing.

In her initial statement, Van der Velden said the company wanted Norwood “to be the next Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman” which shows a grotesque lack of understanding not only of acting but precisely what makes those actors special. I hesitate to even drag them into this, as both are gifted performers who spent years proving they are more than precisely what Norwood is: an attractive face that can repeat lines. It’s also somewhat ironic that she named two actors who have carved their own, outspoken paths despite an industry that has wanted to box them in their entire careers. Portman and Johansson’s longevity isn’t just about talent, but smart career choices and standing up for what they believe in. (You’re not going to see Norwood suing Disney for pay she’s owed, which I’m sure is part of the appeal.)

What makes so many actors special – and stars – is their individuality, their uniqueness, that quality that no one else can bring to a role. Go to an audition and you’re likely to see a line-up of a similar types being cast. What is it that makes one person stand apart and win the role over hundreds of others? Talent, chemistry, how they fit into the existing cast all play a role but also that indefinable quality that is just “it.” We’re still teaching AI that humans only have five fingers, I don’t think we’re quite ready to pull off that nuance.

An early promo from Particle6 for Norwood didn’t inspire much faith, either. One speaker referred to her as “like if a Sunday roast went to drama school and got BAFTA-optimized” – as if that were a good thing and as if and great actors are literal pieces of meat. Another person in the promo asked, “But can she cry on Graham Norton?” To which another talking head responded: “Of course she can. And it will be clipped, subtitled and monetized on TikTok by lunchtime.” Statements like this and the joy with which they’re expressed show not just a lack of understanding, but borderline disdain for the profession.

I know not everyone’s journey is the same. But until an AI character endures living paycheck to paycheck, countless cattle calls, screaming directors and the constant battle with imposter syndrome, I’m not willing to call it an actor. Even giving a piece of art a name and gender and what I assume will be personality attributes (I dread the inevitable first “exclusive” interview with Norwood where she “breaks her silence” about this) is problematic to me. I’m not even going to get into how this AI was generated, as I assume it’s from composites of actual actors and people – possibly without their knowledge or consent.

And considering how poorly Norwood’s creators have already read the landscape, I’m not feeling confident that their AI creation is going to pull off the nuance required to give her a lasting career.