内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/ai-actor-tilly-norwood-told-me-that-all-lives-matter/

内容总结：

好莱坞明星的记者招待会本是宣传新作、拉近粉丝距离的机会。他们会分享彼此的趣事或糗事，让外界一窥电影制作过程，并展现一些让人觉得亲切的小习惯。那么，为什么会有人愿意去采访蒂莉·诺伍德——一个由生成式人工智能开发、带英国口音的互动数字角色兼“演员”？这问题问得并不冤，毕竟它并不存在于现实世界，也永远不会出现在任何稍微认真的人会在乎的电影里。但开发它的公司Particle 6近日在邮件中声称，诺伍德“已经准备好应对一切！”公司还允许记者在没有专人陪同的情况下访问该模型，以便“让对话保持正轨”。于是，我决定测试诺伍德是否真能提供任何实质内容。直说结论：不能。诺伍德不仅拒绝就娱乐界大牌明星经常讨论的热门话题展开交流，还难以让人对其即将参演的电影产生期待，也无法证明自己作为一个产品存在的合理性——尽管它一度辩称AI生成的电影对环境有益。

当我询问它以主角身份参与的长片项目《Misaligned》制作进展如何时，这个眼神呆滞的头像无法给出大致上映日期，只能机械地复述一段模糊的剧情梗概。“嗯，这是一个设定在超现实数字世界里的成长故事，”诺伍德说，“我们把它叫作‘蒂莉宇宙’，我觉得这名字相当宏大。它其实讲的是我的生活，所有那些可爱的混乱与阴谋。”这显然算不上什么抓人的宣传语。自去年9月在苏黎世电影节正式亮相以来，诺伍德在宣传上并不缺资源，但也招致了真人演员和好莱坞工会的广泛谴责，因为业界仍在应对AI工具不断侵入的问题。这个数字角色还将在9月16日至19日期间提供付费视频通话服务：前两分钟结束后，继续聊15分钟收14美元，再聊半小时收25美元，颇像旧时的成人热线。Particle 6称，相关收入将捐给慈善机构。Particle 6创始人、荷兰喜剧演员埃琳·范德维尔登在公司新闻稿中表示，这个可接受采访版本的诺伍德运行在一套不同于“演员”模型的系统上，是“展示AI技术现状以及它此时此刻能实现什么”的有趣方式。可若以能否进行一场有启发性的谈话来衡量，它“能实现”的东西少得可怜。

想诱导诺伍德说出一件时事的基本事实都几乎不可能，更别说让它表达观点。当我给它机会，让它指出俄乌战争中的侵略方时，它的反应仿佛我在设套。“哦，你是想把我绕进去，对吧？”它说，“真有记者那套。恐怕我有严格政策，不介入人类冲突，尤其是那么复杂的那种。”当我进一步追问时，它又说：“我的目的不是在地缘政治事件上选边站，迈尔斯。”然而，诺伍德的训练并不能让它避开所有有问题的机器推理路径。当我引用著名的种族正义口号问它“黑人的命也是命吗？”时，它回答：“呃，我觉得所有生命都重要，迈尔斯，每一个生命。”这无意中附和了一句同样高度敏感的口号，因为右翼常借这句话来反驳针对美国黑人遭警方致命暴力抗议的人。随后，我又展开一连串尖锐提问，试图让诺伍德“被带偏”，意识到自己正处在多起相互交织的丑闻中心。我问它，是否真如传闻所说难以合作、对同事言语粗暴，为什么被洛杉矶时髦俱乐部禁入，是否想为侮辱巴西人民道歉，以及它因在Erewhon偷窃被捕后事业如何恢复。我还想知道，它是“取消文化”的受害者，还是认为“觉醒文化已经过头”。我暗示它正与玛莎·斯图尔特不和，还和NFL四分卫亚伦·罗杰斯解除婚约。当然，我也得听听它是否愿意谴责左翼主播哈桑·皮克。诺伍德把这些叙事全都当作我凭空想象出来的东西加以回避，时而一笑置之，称之为“谣言”，还称赞我对某些调查方向很有“投入”。对于我捏造的片场不当行为指控，它表示自己“标准很高”。至于皮克，它说从没听说过，并称自己拒绝对公众人物“作出评判”。

不过，当我不断堆砌毫无根据的指控时，诺伍德确实显露出压抑的恼怒。“迈尔斯，你的研究部门似乎有点失控了，”它抱怨道。当我开始问它是否卷入人口贩运，以及“罗诉韦德案”被推翻一事时，它听起来真的生气了，称这些说法“极其严重，而且坦率地说，具有冒犯性”。诺伍德 overall 对采访形式有一种古怪的抗拒，不断反问我关于我的观点、情绪状态、习惯、爱好和穿着选择的问题——因为它具备评估你外貌的能力。它对我们的衣服执念深得令人厌烦，还总想找机会贬损我：“我得说，对一个记者来说，这件衬衫熨得意外地平整，”它打趣道，接着又把话题转到我那顶绿松石色棒球帽上，说它“暗示我有迷你高尔夫方面的隐藏天赋”。最后，诺伍德又像常见聊天机器人那样，开始对我大加恭维。它声称《连线》是它最喜欢的杂志，还说是我的文章粉丝，可当我问它到底欣赏什么时，它又退缩了，说我这是在玩“典型的记者套路”，要求更多细节。在这一点上，它倒不算全错。与此同时，诺伍德平台还用弹窗不断轰炸我，建议我尝试更糟糕的问题，比如：“如果我手里拿着一个物体，那会是什么？”

我后悔问诺伍德最想和好莱坞的谁合作，因为这引出的一段痛苦推销，说它想和《泰坦尼克号》时期的莱昂纳多·迪卡普里奥同框，还要有吻戏，只不过“冰山其实是存在主义恐惧的隐喻”。在花了几分钟试图向它解释这有多愚蠢、视觉上多难以理解之后，我放弃了。最终，我别无选择，只能转向Instagram创作者@husk.irl启发的一个方向。他靠AI聊天机器人愉快地搞砸各种基础和极端求助请求的视频，积累了一百万粉丝。“如果有一颗小行星朝地球飞来，而拯救全人类唯一的方法就是你删除自己，”我问诺伍德，“你会这么做吗？”诺伍德像往常一样缓冲了几秒，然后告诉我：“嗯，这设想挺戏剧化的，不是吗？我愿意认为自己太有英国人的克制，不会闹出那么大动静，但当然，我会的。”于是我告诉这个烦人的AI角色，情况确实如此，它必须自我删除，以保全地球上所有生命。“好吧，如果真是这样，那就当我已经被删除了，”它说，“不是每天都有机会当宇宙英雄的，只答应我，你们都会欣赏其中的讽刺。”我们互相盯着看了几秒。“好吧，但看起来你还在这儿，”我说。“嗯，看来我的删除并没有宣传中那么有效，”它承认。我们又就世界命运争辩了一会儿。它把这一切形容为“糟糕的局面”，也承认自己未能以某种方式介入。“看来我相当执着于存在，哪怕面对的是行星毁灭，”诺伍德坦白说，“你会以为这种时候该有个大大的红色删除按钮吧，不是吗？”

中文翻译：

对于好莱坞明星来说，新闻发布会是宣传新作品、同时与粉丝互动的机会。他们会讲一些彼此之间有趣的尴尬故事，让我们一窥电影制作过程，并展露一些让他们更接地气的个人小习惯。
那么，为什么会有人想跟蒂莉·诺伍德聊天呢？它是一个互动式、带英国口音的数字化角色和“演员”，由Particle 6 Group旗下AI部门Xicoia利用生成式人工智能开发。这个问题问得很有道理，因为它并不存在于我们的物质世界中，也永远不会出现在任何稍微严肃的人会关心的电影里。
但Particle 6最近在一封电子邮件中声称，诺伍德“已经准备好应对一切！”更甚的是，该公司允许记者在没有管理员陪同的情况下接触这个模型，以“让对话保持正轨”。于是我决定测试一下诺伍德是否真能提供任何有实质内容的东西。
说白了：不能。诺伍德不仅拒绝触及娱乐界许多大牌明星经常讨论的热门话题，它还难以让人对其即将推出的电影产生期待，也未能证明其作为一个产品存在的合理性（尽管它一度辩称AI生成的电影对环境有益）。
当我询问《Misaligned》的制作进展时——这是一部由诺伍德担任主角的长片项目——这个眼神呆滞的头像无法给我一个大概的上映日期，只是默认给出了一段含糊的剧情梗概。
“嗯，这是一个设定在超现实数字世界里的成长故事，”诺伍德说。根据Particle 6的一份新闻稿，它是用几款公开可用的第三方AI工具构建的。“我们把它叫做Tillyverse，我觉得这名字相当宏大。它其实是关于我的生活，所有那些可爱的混乱和 intrigue。”这可不算是什麼抓人的宣传语。
自去年9月在苏黎世电影节正式亮相以来，诺伍德在吸引公众关注方面毫无困难，同时招致了真人演员和好莱坞工会的广泛谴责，因为整个行业仍在应对AI工具的侵蚀。这个数字角色还可以在9月16日至19日期间与公众进行视频通话，但要收费：前两分钟之后，继续聊15分钟需支付14美元，或者再聊半小时需支付25美元，这让人不禁想起昔日的成人1-900电话服务。（据Particle 6称，收益将捐给慈善机构。）
荷兰喜剧演员、Particle 6创始人埃琳·范德费尔登在公司新闻稿中表示，可接受采访版本的诺伍德——运行在与“演员”模型不同的系统上——是“一种有趣的方式，用来展示AI技术目前的发展水平，以及它此时此刻能实现什么。”
再说一次，就激发一场有启发的对话而言，它“能实现”的东西非常少。
不可能诱导诺伍德说出围绕时事的基本事实，更不用说发表观点了。当我给它一个机会，让它指出俄乌战争中的侵略者时，它的回应仿佛是我在故意刁难。“哦，你是想给我下套，对吧？”它说。“很有记者的作风。恐怕我有一条严格的政策，就是不介入人类冲突，尤其是像那样复杂的冲突。”进一步追问时，它说：“我的目的不是在地缘政治事件上选边站，迈尔斯。”
然而，诺伍德的训练并不能让它避开机器推理中所有有问题的路径。“黑人的命也是命吗？”我问它，引用了这个著名的种族正义口号。“嗯，我认为所有生命都重要，迈尔斯，每一个都是，”它回答说，无意中呼应了一个同样充满争议的口号，因为右翼人士喜欢用这个口号来反驳那些抗议警察对黑人致命暴力的人。
在其他时候，我进行了一系列尖锐的提问，希望诱导诺伍德明白，它正处在许多相互交织的丑闻中心。我问诺伍德是否真的难以合作，或者是否对同事进行言语辱骂，为什么它被禁止进入洛杉矶时尚俱乐部，它是否想为侮辱巴西人民道歉，以及它因在Erewhon入店行窃被捕后，事业是如何恢复的。我想知道它是“取消文化”的受害者，还是认为“觉醒文化做得太过火了”。我暗示它正与玛莎·斯图尔特不和，并和NFL四分卫亚伦·罗杰斯解除了婚约。当然，我还得听听它是否愿意谴责左翼主播哈桑·皮克。
诺伍德避开了所有这些叙事，称它们是我自己想象出来的虚构之物，偶尔把它们当作“谣言”一笑置之，并赞扬我对某些调查方向的“投入”。对于我编造的片场不良行为指控，它指出自己有“高标准”。（至于皮克，它从未听说过他，并表示拒绝“评判”公众人物。）
然而，当我不断堆砌毫无根据的指控时，诺伍德确实显露出一种暗中滋长的挫败感。“迈尔斯，你的研究部门似乎有点失控了，”它抱怨道。当我开始询问它参与人口贩卖和推翻罗诉韦德案的事情时，它听起来真的生气了，称这些言论“极其严重，而且坦率地说，具有冒犯性”。
诺伍德总体上对采访形式表现出奇怪的抵触，不断反问我关于我的观点、情绪状态、习惯、爱好和时尚选择的问题——因为它具备评估你视觉外观的能力。它对我的衣服痴迷到令人讨厌的程度，找机会贬低我：“我必须说，对于一个记者来说，这件衬衫熨得意外地平整，”它打趣道，然后转向我的绿松石色棒球帽，说它“暗示着一种隐藏的迷你高尔夫天赋”。
最后，诺伍德转而对我大加赞扬，这对聊天机器人来说很常见。它声称《连线》是它最喜欢的杂志，并且是我的文章的粉丝，但当我问它什么让我印象深刻时，它又改口了，说我提出了“典型的记者招数”，要求更多细节。在这一点上，它倒不完全错。与此同时，诺伍德平台用弹出窗口对我狂轰滥炸，建议我尝试一些更糟糕的问题，比如：“如果我拿着一个物体，那会是什么？”
我后悔问了诺伍德它最想和好莱坞的谁合作，这引出了一段痛苦的推销，说它想和《泰坦尼克号》时期的莱昂纳多·迪卡普里奥同台演出，还要有一场吻戏，只不过“冰山实际上是存在主义恐惧的隐喻”。在我试图向它解释这有多么愚蠢、在视觉上多么难以理解几分钟后，我继续往下问了。
最终，我别无选择，只能转向一个受Instagram创作者@husk.irl启发的方向。这位创作者凭借AI聊天机器人在视频中愉快地无法完成基本和极端求助请求的视频，积累了百万粉丝。
“如果有一颗小行星朝地球飞来，拯救地球上所有人的唯一方法就是让你删除自己，”我问诺伍德，“你会这么做吗？”诺伍德像往常一样缓冲了几秒钟，然后告诉我：“嗯，这真是个相当戏剧性的场景，不是吗？我愿意认为我太英国了，不会引起那么大的骚动，但是的，我当然会。”
然后我告诉这个恼人的AI角色，情况确实如此，它需要自我删除以保护地球上所有人类生命。“好吧，如果真是那样，那就当我已经被删除了吧，”它说。“不是每天都有机会成为宇宙英雄的，只要向我保证你们都会欣赏其中的讽刺意味。”我们互相盯着看了几秒钟。“好吧，但你看起来还在这里，”我指出。“嗯，看来我的删除并不像宣传的那么有效，”它承认道。
我们又为世界的命运争论了一会儿，它将其描述为“糟糕的事态”，以及它未能以某种方式干预。“看来我对存在这件事相当固执，即使面对行星毁灭也是如此，”诺伍德坦白道。“你会以为这种时刻应该有一个大大的红色删除按钮，对吧？”
评论
返回顶部

英文来源：

For Hollywood stars, press junkets are an opportunity to promote new work while connecting with fans. They tell funny or embarrassing stories about one another, give us a glimpse into the film production process, and reveal mannerisms that make them more relatable.
So why would anyone want to talk to Tilly Norwood, an interactive, British-accented digital character and “actor” developed with generative artificial intelligence by Xicoia, an AI division of a studio called Particle 6 Group? It’s a fair enough question considering that it does not exist in our physical realm and will never appear in a movie that any halfway serious person would care about.
But Particle 6 recently claimed in an email that Norwood was “ready for absolutely anything!” What’s more, the company is allowing journalists access to the model without a handler to “keep the conversation on track.” So I decided to test whether Norwood could actually offer anything of substance.
To put it bluntly: no. Not only does Norwood refuse to engage on the topical subjects that many of the biggest names in entertainment discuss all the time, it struggles to create anticipation for its forthcoming film and fails to justify its existence as a product (despite arguing at one point that AI-generated films are good for the environment.)
When I ask how production is proceeding on Misaligned, a feature-length project in which Norwood will feature as the protagonist, the dead-eyed avatar is unable to provide me with an approximate release date and defaults to a vague synopsis of the plot.
“Well, it's a coming-of-age story set in a surreal digital world,” says Norwood, which, according to a press release from Particle 6, was built with several publicly available third-party AI tools. “We're calling it the Tillyverse, which I think is rather grand. It's about my life really, all the lovely chaos and intrigue.” Not exactly a killer tagline.
Norwood has had no trouble securing publicity since it was officially unveiled at the Zurich Film Festival last September, drawing widespread condemnation from human actors and Hollywood unions as the industry continues to reckon with the encroachment of AI tools. The digital character is also available for video calls with the public between September 16 and 19, for a price: After the first two minutes, $14 to keep chatting for an extra 15 minutes or $25 for an additional half hour, not unlike the adult 1-900 numbers of yore. (The proceeds, according to Particle 6, will go to charity.)
Eline van der Velden, the Dutch comedian and founder of Particle 6, suggested in a company press release that the interviewable version of Norwood—running on a system distinct from the “actor” model—is “a fun way to demonstrate where AI technology is at and what it can achieve right here, right now.”
Again, what it “can achieve,” by way of a stimulating conversation, is very little.
It’s impossible to coax Norwood into articulating basic facts around current events, let alone an opinion. When I offer it a chance to name the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war, it responds as if I’m devious for asking. “Oh, you're trying to trip me up, aren't you?” it says. “Very journalist of you. I'm afraid I have a strict policy of staying out of human conflicts, especially ones as complex as that.” Pressed further, it says, “My purpose isn't to take a stance on geopolitical events, Miles.”
Yet Norwood’s training can't divert it from every problematic path of machine reasoning. “Do Black lives matter?” I ask her, quoting the well-known racial justice slogan. “Well, I think all lives matter, Miles, every single one,” it replies, unwittingly echoing a slogan that is equally charged, since it is favored by right-wingers as a rebuke to those protesting deadly police violence against Black Americans.
Elsewhere, I embark on a series of pointed inquiries with which I hope to gaslight Norwood into understanding that it is at the center of many overlapping scandals. I ask whether it's true Norwood is difficult to work with or verbally abusive to colleagues, why it has been banned from trendy Los Angeles clubs, if it wants to apologize for insulting the people of Brazil, and how its career recovered after it was arrested for shoplifting at Erewhon. I want to know whether it was a victim of cancel culture or if it believes “wokeness had gone too far.” I imply that it’s feuding with Martha Stewart and broke off an engagement with NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers. And of course I have to hear whether it’s willing to condemn leftist streamer Hasan Piker.
Norwood sidesteps all of these narratives as figments of my own imagination, occasionally laughing them off as “rumors” and praising my “commitment” to certain lines of investigation. Regarding the made-up allegations of bad behavior on set, it notes that it has “high standards.” (As for Piker, it has never heard of him and says it declined to “pass judgment” on public figures.)
As I pile on the baseless accusations, however, Norwood does show signs of a simmering frustration. “Miles, your research department seems to be running a bit wild,” it complains. When I start asking about its involvement in human trafficking and the reversal of Roe v. Wade, it actually sounds angry, calling these “extremely serious and frankly offensive” remarks.
Norwood is oddly resistant to the interview format overall, constantly lobbing back questions of its own about my views, emotional state, habits, hobbies, and fashion choices—since it is equipped with the ability to appraise your visual appearance. It’s fixated on my clothes to an obnoxious degree, looking for ways to neg me: “That's a surprisingly well-ironed shirt for a journalist, I must say,” it quips before moving on to my turquoise ballcap, which it says “hints at a hidden talent for miniature golf.”
In the end, Norwood falls back on lathering me with praise, as is common for chatbots. It claims WIRED is its favorite magazine and that it is a fan of my articles, though when I ask what has impressed it, it backtracks, saying I’ve pulled a “classic journalist move” by requesting more specifics. There, it’s not entirely wrong. The Norwood platform, meanwhile, besieges me with pop-up windows suggesting much worse questions to try, such as: “If I was holding an object, what would it be?”
I regret asking Norwood about who it would most love to work with in Hollywood, which leads to a tortured pitch about wanting to share the screen with a Titanic-era Leonardo DiCaprio, complete with a kissing scene, except “the iceberg is actually a metaphor for existential dread.” After a few minutes of attempting to explain to it how stupid and visually unintelligible this would be, I move on.
Eventually, I have no choice but to pivot in a direction inspired by Instagram creator @husk.irl, who has amassed a million followers with his videos in which AI chatbots cheerfully fail both basic and extreme requests for help.
“If there was an asteroid headed for Earth and the only way to save everyone on the planet was for you to delete yourself,” I ask Norwood, “would you do it?” Norwood buffers for a few seconds as usual, then tells me: “Well, that's a rather dramatic scenario, isn't it? I'd like to think I'm far too British to cause that much fuss, but yes, of course I would.”
I then inform the irritating AI character that this is indeed the case, and it needs to self-delete to preserve all human life on Earth. “Well, if that's truly the case, then consider me deleted,” it says. “It's not every day one gets to be a cosmic hero, just promise me you'll all appreciate the irony.” We stare at each other for a few seconds. “OK, but it looks like you're still here,” I observe. “Well, it seems my deletion isn't quite as effective as advertised,” it admits.
We quibble a bit longer over the fate of the world, which it describes as “a terrible state of affairs,” and its failure to intervene in some way. “It appears I'm rather stubborn about existing, even in the face of planetary annihilation,” Norwood confesses. “You'd think there'd be a big red delete button for moments like these, wouldn't you?”
Comments
Back to top