But Norwood was generated with artificial intelligence (AI). The AI \u201cactor\u201d has been created by Xicoia, the AI branch of the production company Particle6, founded by the Dutch actor-turned-producer Ven der Velden. And AI Commissioner is an AI-generated short film, written by ChatGPT. <\/p>\n
A post<\/a> about the film\u2019s launch on Norwood\u2019s Facebook page read, <\/p>\n I may be AI generated, but I\u2019m feeling very real emotions right now. I am so excited for what\u2019s coming next!<\/p>\n The reception from the industry has been far from warm. Actors \u2013 and audiences \u2013 have come out in force<\/a> against Norwood.<\/p>\n So, is this the future of film, or is it a gimmick?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u2018Tilly Norwood is not an actor\u2019<\/p>\n Norwood\u2019s existence introduces a new type of technology to Hollywood. Unlike CGI (computer generated imagery), where a performer\u2019s movements are captured and transformed into a digital character<\/a>, or an animation which is voiced by a human actor, Norwood has no human behind her performance. Every expression and line delivery is generated by AI. <\/p>\n Norwood has been trained on the performances of hundreds of actors, without any payment or consent, and draws on the information from all those performances in every expression and line delivery. <\/p>\n Her arrival comes less than two years after the artist strikes that brought Hollywood to a stand-still, with AI a central issue<\/a> to the disputes. The strike ended with a historic agreement placing limitations around digital replicas of actors\u2019 faces and voices, but did not completely ban \u201csynthetic fakes<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n SAG-AFTRA, the union representing actors in the United States, has said<\/a>:<\/p>\n To 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 \u2013 without permission or compensation.<\/p>\n Additionally, real actors can set boundaries and are protected by agents, unions and intimacy coordinators<\/a> who negotiate what is shown on screen. <\/p>\n Norwood can be made to perform anything in any context \u2013 becoming a vessel for whatever creators or producers choose to depict. <\/p>\n This absence of consent or control opens a dangerous pathway to how the (digitally reproduced) female body may be represented on screen, both in mainstream cinema, and in pornography.<\/p>\n Is it art?<\/p>\n We consider creativity to be a human quality<\/a>. Art is generally understood as an expression of human experience. Norwood\u2019s performances do not come from such creativity or human experience, but from a database of pre-existing performances. <\/p>\n All artists borrow from and are influenced by predecessors and contemporaries. But that human influence is limited by time, informed by our own experiences and shaped by our unique perspective.<\/p>\n AI has no such limits: just look at Google\u2019s chess-playing program AlphaZero, which learnt by playing millions of games of chess<\/a>, more than any human can play in a life time. <\/p>\n Norwood\u2019s training can absorb hundreds of performances in a way no single actor could. Norwood\u2019s training can absorb hundreds of performances in a way no single actor could. How can that be compared to an actor\u2019s performance \u2013 a craft they have developed throughout their training and career?<\/p>\n Van der Velden argues Norwood is \u201ca new tool<\/a>\u201d for creators. Tools have previously been a paintbrush or a typewriter, which have helped facilitate or extend the creativity of painting or writing. <\/p>\n Here, Norwood as the tool performs the creative act itself. The AI is the tool and the artist<\/a>. <\/p>\n Will audiences accept AI actors?<\/p>\n Norwood\u2019s survival depends not on industry hype but on audience reception.<\/p>\n![\"Norwood](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/file-20251006-56-oaogja.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n Particle6 Productions<\/p>\n