Is Generative AI Killing The Video Star?

If you missed the latest AI controversy amid the other gloomy AI stories creeping into your daily feeds, believe me, you shouldn’t. It’s worth all the media hype, and maybe even deserving of more coverage than what it has received so far.

A preview of what's to come in the next few years?

At the end of September, news outlets reported on up-coming female actor ‘Tilly Norwood’ who, as announced in her social media feeds, is making the rounds in Hollywood to incite interest from talent agents and studios. She’s been auditioning for upcoming productions. Like all actors, she sounds eager and hopeful in getting her first acting job.

But, of course, she’s not real. 

She’s the product of generative AI by a company called Particle6. Norwood wants to virtually insert herself into productions that she’s suited for, and she can take directions easily because of her training. Not profession-led. But machine-based. Particle6’s CEO is ironically a former female actor named Eline Van Der Velden who became the target of the backlash alongside poor Norwood, turning the initial reporting into vitriolic, human-texted backlash. This assault was two-pronged. The first and foremost was from human talent in Hollywood like actors Whoopi Goldberg, Cameron Cowperthwaite and Sophie Turner, among others, who voiced their concerns about job loss. Unequivocally. Up to this point the technology narrative was that AI helps humans avoid menial work and repetition, so that we can focus on creativity and knowledge. AI is meant to create first drafts so that we can save ourselves from staring at a blank screen. But it appears that even that is no longer sacrosanct. AI could come up with the story and now act it out by itself, with the help of a few directorial prompts. YouTube creators are weighing too, with MrBeast adding his worries to the conversation.

Not that Hollywood studios cared so much. But they’ve been weighing in from the second perspective regarding - what else - loss of their commercial rights. Claims from the studios allege that Norwood was trained on hundreds of real female actors without permission. It’s a valid concern. Stock image libraries like Getty Images were woefully impacted by platforms like ChatGPT. They’ve pivoted from purely selling images to licensing to the AI platforms instead, even offering their own AI image generators. It’s got Hollywood concerned, with Disney, Universal and Warner Bros already filing suits against some platforms. Norwood’s appearance may validate that concern. On a broader level, artists, writers and tech companies are engaging in legal wrangles regarding copyright and fair use concerns in AI. (In the meantime, AI platforms have been allowed to continue operating). 

Claiming commercial foul play is an awkward juxtaposition from the real point that Goldberg, Turner et al are making, which is that AI-generated talent is threatening their profession. Emily Blunt was succinct. “We’re screwed.” Ralph Ineson was less diplomatic and while I won’t quote what he said, the CNN source is here.

In understanding these two perspectives I believe stakeholders need to move forward proactively on two fronts. First, the media industry needs a framework for how AI is incorporated into the creative process, from pre-production all the way through to post-production. It’s premature to think that we can start replacing human actors without understanding both its implications. One only needs to see how social media grew unfettered in its first decade before we finally understood its consequences. Thus, the need for dialogue and a sand-box before we can effectively embark on proper use. On the second front, let’s make sure we even think about replacing humans in the creative process. I’m all for generative AI in terms of replacing RPA (robotic process automation) for menial tasks, simplifying special effects, corrective post-production and enforcing content security to mitigate piracy. Those are worthwhile. But the dangers in replacing human creativity is something we can barely comprehend.

Why is that? As an industry practitioner whose career has spanned the gamut of media, from production to streaming, I’ve always seen technology as additive to creating entertainment. Disruptive, surely. But embraceable. For the first time, I’m facing technology that is destructive. I can’t buy Van Der Velden’s claims that this is ‘art’ or that AI is a new ‘sub-genre’. Or that she sees generative AI as a progression of animation, puppetry and CGI (computer-generated imaging) that opens ‘fresh possibilities’. I argue that puppets have human handlers and are crafted by humans. Animation has voice actors. CGI movement is modelled and rendered by humans. 

The argument to-date has been that AI allows humans to focus on creativity and creative-thinking. But the creators of Norwood have shown that humans don’t even need to be part of that process, unless you include the prompter. The argument by Van Der Velden that Norwood is not meant to replace human actors because “she is not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work — a piece of art,” is pure technology-speak designed to appeal to potential investors. In the race for fundraising, we’ve shown the limits that humans will go to replace human ability. None.

An AI-generated actor that acts out a scene exactly as a director wants it, without true improvisational-thinking or human expression is a hollow vessel. It’s as soul-less as that robo voice-over explainer video you came across on YouTube recently. Nothing matches the literal sparking of creativity, when human beings retrieve memories and learnings, stored deep in the recesses of their minds, where synapses fire and render a personalised interpretation unto a medium of their choice. The mind becomes the ultimate analog processor and the hands become the interface to any medium, be it canvas or a stage. It’s real magic.

This tailoring of experiences to artistic output is what makes humans unique, not just among living creatures, but also anything on the planet capable of meaningful output. It is this human expression that needs to be maintained, nurtured and protected as we continue in our lives, and in our communal gatherings. It’s not that humanity needs to be paramount above all things. Our human existence is still fragile, too much of a risk to leave in AI, let alone in our hands. 

So, let’s take the cue from another, more useful technology innovation: let’s press ‘pause’ and talk about this.