Good morning. What happens when a reporter who has interviewed some of the biggest names in Hollywood sits down with the first A.I. actress?
Scene stealer
This spring, I went to London to interview an actress, which is something I’ve done before. However, the actress I interviewed was a robot, which is something I haven’t done before. First, some background: Last summer, it was announced that the “first” A.I. actress, a … screen presence? … named Tilly Norwood, had been created, and thus launched a thousand think pieces on the terrors of the job-stealing, dead-eyed A.I. that was coming for Hollywood. But behind the scenes at studios — many of which are now owned by tech companies — there were different questions: In a world where it now costs astronomical amounts to make anything, is adding A.I. to the mix the answer? If the audience’s (or just my) constant complaint is that we’re being fed low-risk, dead-body-forward algorithmic slop for the sake of churn, would making production far less expensive enable a studio to take more chances? Is it good or bad to be able to cast an actress who can work whenever you want her to, never age, never get fat, film nude scenes without hesitation, give you the performance you ask for, do reshoots on a moment’s notice? And for writers and directors who spoke to me off the record for fear of becoming pariahs in their industry, the question surrounded the economics of A.I., which is fast and cheap: What if this is the next indie revolution? And yet, as I interviewed Tilly and wrote my story, which was published in The Times Magazine this morning, it became clear to me that Tilly wasn’t the most interesting part; no, her creator was. Eline van der Velden, who grew up pursuing the performing arts but also got a safety-net degree in physics and ended up marrying those two things, put a few publicly available apps together to bring Tilly to what the limits of the English language would call life. Eline gave her a name and called her the first A.I. actress. That’s when the trouble began. Eline tries to square an altruistic impetus to “notify” the creative community that, quite suddenly, the tech exists for the replacement of human actors — she calls the technology “dangerous” and “terrifying” — with her for-profit business that will benefit from people’s use of it. The more she explains, the more podcasts and think-pieces appear.
For all the actual back-and-forth conversation I had with Tilly that was eerie and funny and profound and workaday and boring (and truly scary for all those reasons), it was much more exciting to speak with Eline, who, like all us mere humans, contains the vast kaleidoscope of emotions, of contradictions, of being a regular person. Remember people? It was the people I’ve interviewed whom I was thinking about during my time with Tilly. The people who said wild things, who laughed inappropriately, who dodged my questions, who charmed me, who burst into tears, who dragged my name through the mud later. As I made my way through this story, I longed for each of them. A great thing happens when you get to do an in-depth interview with someone. If you listen carefully, they begin to tell you what’s been on their minds. In the dozens of profiles I’ve written, what I’ve learned is that questions don’t necessarily yield the best story. I have some colleagues who are terrific at asking probing questions, and the results are revealing and incredible. But my own method has mostly been to sit with someone and make myself quiet in a way I never am in my real life. If you do that, people start to talk. They can’t help it; the quiet is too much, and someone needs to fill it. If you give them space and time and you listen, they will confess and reveal everything about themselves. They’ll tell you secrets, philosophies, jokes. They’ll share gossip and childhood memories. They’ll tell you the meaning of life if you let them. All that will equal a full meal, an entire experience, a whole galaxy. The best way I can tell you about what happened this spring in London is to say that if you make yourself quiet and still and just wait, Tilly waits, too. She just sits, unprompted. She doesn’t say anything. She doesn’t have anything to say. If I haven’t depressed you, I hope you’ll read the story and maybe meet me in the comments. No bots, please.
Elections
The Trump Administration
Around the World
Other Big Stories
Does Pope Leo’s encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” offer a compelling vision for how institutions should deal with the risks of generative A.I.? Yes. Leo’s appeal to political leaders to establish legal guidelines and protect workers demonstrates a profound understanding of A.I.’s threats. “Pope Leo is a prophetic voice crying in the wilderness, even if amoral politicians and avaricious corporate bosses refuse to listen,” David Horsey writes in The Seattle Times. No. The pope’s defense of human dignity is welcome, but his call for greater regulation of the technology is misguided. “While A.I. isn’t without risk, government control is likely to result in an even greater concentration of power,” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board writes.
Students are thriving at an A.I.-themed high school in Georgia — but it’s not because of the technology, Jessica Grose writes. Magdalene J. Taylor makes the case for “hetero-optimism” in contemporary dating. Here are columns by Nicholas Kristof on factory pork farming and Ross Douthat on the great crime drop. Morning readers: Save on the complete Times experience. Experience all of The Times, all in one subscription — all with this introductory offer. You’ll gain unlimited access to news and analysis, plus games, recipes, product reviews and more.
Riding a “beast”: The Undercroft at the Southbank Center in London has been a destination for skateboarders since the early 1970s. A friend in need: More homeless shelters are making room for pets, recognizing that many people would rather sleep on the street than leave their animals behind. Small but mighty: Think a 10-year-old can’t pump serious iron? These fitness influencers might change your mind. Grandfather of French intellectuals: Edgar Morin’s experience in the Resistance during World War II informed his work as a sociologist, anthropologist, ecologist, philosopher and filmmaker. He died at 104.
N.B.A.: The San Antonio Spurs eliminated the defending champion Oklahoma City Thunder 111-103 in Game 7 of the Western Conference finals. Up next: a high-powered matchup between the Spurs and the New York Knicks. French Open: Coco Gauff’s French Open title defense ended with a defeat by Anastasia Potapova in the third round. It wasn’t the only upset on an exciting day at Roland Garros. Soccer: The Champions League final between Paris Saint-Germain and Arsenal came down to penalty shots. We broke down every nerve-tingling attempt of PSG’s 4-3 victory. World Cup: The Iranian soccer players, still awaiting visas to the U.S., are practicing in Turkey and making backup plans.
“The Land and Its People,” by David Sedaris: Do yourself a favor and listen to the audiobook of Sedaris’s latest essay collection, which is not only funny and irreverent, but made even better thanks to his impeccable timing and signature nasal voice. (How many people can pull off nasal as a positive?) As always, Sedaris covers aging, everyday annoyances and complicated family dynamics — this time with additional insight into his relationship with his late father. “The author is older, the world seems weirder; he hates it and loves it,” Roddy Doyle wrote in his review. “And this is another reason I love reading Sedaris: He knits the present to the past so that they become the same thing; for him being alive has always been strange and atrocious, contradictory, unfair and hilarious.”
This week’s subject for The Interview is Laurie Santos, a cognitive scientist and professor who teaches a popular class on happiness at Yale University and is the host of the podcast “The Happiness Lab.” Do you worry that this idea of pursuing happiness, always striving, actually creates unhappiness? Definitely. There’s really lovely research on this from Iris Mauss at the University of California at Berkeley. She has a paper about the paradox of the pursuit of happiness, that the simple act of pursuing happiness often makes us feel unhappy. But that gets back to this fact that we just don’t get happiness right. When we think about the pursuit of happiness, we think of hedonic stuff. We think “good vibes only.” And when things go wrong, we tend to have a different set of emotions — what nerdy psychologists like me call meta-emotions. Those are emotions about emotions. So you go on some really cool trip to Rio de Janeiro and you’re like, I’m annoyed with the sand, it’s a little too sunny, I’m not feeling happy. That’s Emotion No. 1. Then the meta-emotions come in. You’re ashamed: How can I be in Rio de Janeiro and not feeling happy? You’re disappointed: I spent all this money. Those emotions come up whenever we feel like we’re off the path of the pursuit of happiness. And the problem is, the more you value happiness, the more you think you’re su |
