Tilly Norwood, AI Actress

[Bramblethorn]

The claim of 'pirating' to me is spurious. Anthropic bought digital copies of the works and what the 'offense' consisted of was when the LLM read the works and would sometimes quote them.

I'm not sure why you persist in making false claims about this case even after I've pointed out what the truth is. It would not have been difficult for you to look up the coverage of this case instead of pushing falsehoods here.

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/g-s1...-settlement-pirated-chatbot-training-material

A federal judge dealt the case a mixed ruling in June, finding that training AI chatbots on copyrighted books wasn't illegal but that Anthropic wrongfully acquired millions of books through pirate websites.
...
Alsup's June ruling found that Anthropic had downloaded more than 7 million digitized books that it "knew had been pirated." It started with nearly 200,000 from an online library called Books3, assembled by AI researchers outside of OpenAI to match the vast collections on which ChatGPT was trained.

Debut thriller novel The Lost Night by Bartz, a lead plaintiff in the case, was among those found in the Books3 dataset.

Anthropic later took at least 5 million copies from the pirate website Library Genesis, or LibGen, and at least 2 million copies from the Pirate Library Mirror, Alsup wrote.

I am quoting Taylor Swift here:

...

According to this trash lawsuit I should be sued.

You are unlikely to be sued for quoting a few lines of lyrics because it's not worth anybody's time.

But if you were to post the lyrics of half a million copyrighted songs here (if the mods allowed you to) and you didn't have the copyright owner's permission to do so, then yes, ABSOLUTELY you should expect to be sued for copyright violation. This is exactly why the sites that do host song lyrics have to have licensing arrangements with record labels.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Been a while since I’ve seen an ‘actually, property is theft’ argument out in the wild.


‘Saying it’s illegal to steal a book is the same as saying it’s illegal to pay for a book.’

And you still haven't.
I'd take the whole, "people are going to lose their jobs!" thing more seriously if anyone was making the same argument for self driving cars putting cabbies and truckers out of a job.
Millions of truckers losing a job.... mehhhh.
BUT WON'T YOU THINK OF THE POETS!!!!

 

[RoperTrace]

Right now, AI providers are very, VERY squeamish about their product being used in any way, to provide erotic material.

Down the road, porn stars and OnlyFans talent are going to need to watch out.

That road has become a Lot shorter.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Not sure I see your point. I’ve also seen The Eagles, Queen, Garth Brooks, and dozens of other artists live. Must of them are still going strong. My point is that there are facets of a live performance by a real actual person that AI will never be able to capture or create. It doesn’t matter that AI never had access to a live SRV performance. If it had a million of them, it could never capture his aura, the raw power of him in that stage. I propose the same is true of any human generated art. I have also seen Monet’s Blackbird in person. I don’t believe AI could ever reproduce the impact that painting had on me either.

Ah. With that, I will not argue.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Right now, AI providers are very, VERY squeamish about their product being used in any way, to provide erotic material.

Down the road, porn stars and OnlyFans talent are going to need to watch out.

It’s my conjecture that their reticence is due to their inability to prevent ‘underage’ content from being created not so much the adult stuff. Played with one for a bit and they shut down all nsfw for that reason.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

And what is this supposed social harm [of AI companies stealing people’s property and work]?

You were suggesting there might not be a social harm in having people freely take other people’s property.

If you’re arguing we shouldn’t respect other people’s property and work then petty bourgeois people like me are going to call you an anarchist.

I'd take the whole, "people are going to lose their jobs!" thing more seriously if anyone was making the same argument for self driving cars putting cabbies and truckers out of a job.

The ‘you’re not allowed to worry about the thing you’re worried about until you signal that you’re also worried about the thing that I want you to worry about’ is always a tedious demand but it’s especially so when the demand has in fact already been met:

Many people in the film making industry, especially at the lower end, rely on the paychecks they receive from making commercials and formulaic TV and it's those things that are going to be destroyed by AI.

Perhaps you’re unaware of this but trucks and drivers are an integral part of the film and TV (and commercials) industry.

And who do you think delivers all those books that the writers and poets write?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You were suggesting there might not be a social harm in having people freely take other people’s property.

If you’re arguing we shouldn’t respect other people’s property and work then petty bourgeois people like me are going to call you an anarchist.



The ‘you’re not allowed to worry about the thing you’re worried about until you signal that you’re also worried about the thing that I want you to worry about’ is always a tedious demand but it’s especially so when the demand has in fact already been met:


Perhaps you’re unaware of this but trucks and drivers are an integral part of the film and TV (and commercials) industry.

And who do you think delivers all those books that the writers and poets write?

First, it's bad form to change my quote, even inserting something into brackets. I was suggesting nothing of the sort. If you can't make a cogent argument without engaging in that kind of behavior I'm not sure there is any point in having a discussion.

That said, I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you were just over-enthusiastic rather than intellectually dishonest, although all the unnecessary snark in your response tends to point to the latter.

I simply asked what the societal harm was. If, as you seem to believe it has to do with the piracy aspect of Anthropic's behavior, well that's quite the strawman. AI can exist and be trained without resorting to piracy. The fact that Anthropic chose to take an unethical short cut doesn't doom the entire world of AI to the same path.
Arguing that because some people in the AI space behaved badly dooms the whole industry is nonsense. Any large group will have bad actors.


Second, I am not making any "demands" tedious or otherwise. Don't you think all the books AI writes will still need to be delivered? Won't all the people in the bookstores, warehouses, and printers still have jobs? So what if AI trims off a few? Right?

The point, which in your desire to be snarky you missed, is that technology changes industries, Perhaps you are unaware of this but in 1890 43% of the US population worked in agriculture. Today that number is 1.6%.
Oddly, society didn't collapse, people learned new skills, got new jobs, filled new needs.
Ever met a switchboard operator, a telegraph operator, typewriter repairman? Jobs changed, society moved on. "Artists" are owed no special protection.
The only thing different with AI is that the laptop class, a self-styled intelligentsia is threatened, so now it's a problem we can bemoan in the pages of the Atlantic.
People don't care until it's their ox getting gored.

 

[onehitwanda]

Right now, AI providers are very, VERY squeamish about their product being used in any way, to provide erotic material.

Oh, no, trust me - there are many, many models out there that are optimised for generating erotic video.

They're just not the ones we see in the news all the time.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Oh, no, trust me - there are many, many models out there that are optimised for generating erotic video.

*Wanda's DMs implode as a thousand horny dudes ask her for names*

 

[ColtonWrites]

I'd take the whole, "people are going to lose their jobs!" thing more seriously if anyone was making the same argument for self driving cars putting cabbies and truckers out of a job.
Millions of truckers losing a job.... mehhhh.
BUT WON'T YOU THINK OF THE POETS!!!!

The difference in my mind is that at the end of the day, the product got delivered. Its identical in effect to a human delivering it. Yes humans might lose their jobs to automation but thats been happening since the first time someone built a machine to do work.

The same cannot be said of AI-generated content.

 

[Writer61]

The difference in my mind is that at the end of the day, the product got delivered. Its identical in effect to a human delivering it. Yes humans might lose their jobs to automation but thats been happening since the first time someone built a machine to do work.

The same cannot be said of AI-generated content.

Was the 'delivered product' equivalent in quality or just cheaper? How is AI anything other than a way of producing whatever cheaper than before?

Hand-made has long held a cachet vs machine-made. It is how Michelin five-star restaurants coexist with McDonald's, dressmakers with Shien, and so on. AI is technology extending to more areas than before.

 

[SimonDoom]

The difference in my mind is that at the end of the day, the product got delivered. Its identical in effect to a human delivering it. Yes humans might lose their jobs to automation but thats been happening since the first time someone built a machine to do work.

The same cannot be said of AI-generated content.

I'm not sure if this contrast works if one looks at things from the consumer's perspective, which is the most compelling perspective. If AI delivers what consumers want in terms of poetry, or images, or stories, or other creations of the mind, then who is to say it's any different from automated cars delivering toasters to people's doorsteps?

I suspect there always WILL be a market for hand-made, human-made products, of whatever kind, but it's possible that it will become a niche market, and that AI's replacement of humans will functionally be the same regardless of the product.

I'm just speculating. I'm not at all sure this is what WILL happen.

 

[ColtonWrites]

I guess it depends on what you're considering the product. If you want something pretty to hang on the wall of your dentist office, it doesn't matter if it's AI generated art or not. I use CoPilot at work to generate "acceptance criteria" for software development tickets and it does fine. When what you want is bland, inoffensive, and derivative content, genAI will do it cheaper and better.

If you want ART - something an artist put effort into, that has meaning beyond just being pretty - you can't get that product from an AI, because there is no artist making the art.

 

[Zootonius]

I suspect the first real use will be fashion models. Why pay a model and a cadre photographers, assistants, makeup artists, etc. when a computer can do it. As long as the can generate the fashion correctly, and maybe not give her six fingers.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Because you need someone to wear the clothes in public, and probably for other less savory reasons.

It used to be that all food in commercials was molded plastic, mostly made in a single neighborhood in Tokyo. They have a museum there, I think (or maybe it was a shop that felt like a museum). I think something like that will die, if it hasn't already been killed by digital animation.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I guess it depends on what you're considering the product. If you want something pretty to hang on the wall of your dentist office, it doesn't matter if it's AI generated art or not. I use CoPilot at work to generate "acceptance criteria" for software development tickets and it does fine. When what you want is bland, inoffensive, and derivative content, genAI will do it cheaper and better.

If you want ART - something an artist put effort into, that has meaning beyond just being pretty - you can't get that product from an AI, because there is no artist making the art.

The challenge is that lots of people have a different definition of "art" than you do.
If it's beautiful to look at, pleasing to the ear... whatever... well then it's art.

What passes for the art community did a tremendous amount of damage to itself with all the "tape a banana to the wall and call it art" nonsense.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The challenge is that lots of people have a different definition of "art" than you do.
If it's beautiful to look at, pleasing to the ear... whatever... well then it's art.

What passes for the art community did a tremendous amount of damage to itself with all the "tape a banana to the wall and call it art" nonsense.

Anything done by Andy Warhol is worth millions of dollars these days, so I'm not quite sure where "tremendous amount of damage" enters into it.

Consider Banksy - the version of his work that he put through the shredder changed hands recently for 8 million pounds, whereas the original sold for a million. If it wasn't "art", it wouldn't be an investment.

You might not like it, but that doesn't make it worthless, doesn't make it "not art". Quite the contrary, in fact.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Anything done by Andy Warhol is worth millions of dollars these days, so I'm not quite sure where "tremendous amount of damage" enters into it.

Consider Banksy - the version of his work that he put through the shredder changed hands recently for 8 million pounds, whereas the original sold for a million. If it wasn't "art", it wouldn't be an investment.

You might not like it, but that doesn't make it worthless, doesn't make it "not art". Quite the contrary, in fact.

You have a small, rather inbred community that thinks a banana taped to a wall is "art".
Then you have everyone else.

The art market is INCREDIBLY distorted for a host of reasons beyond the scope of a post here.

And I never said it was worthless, or "not art".
But when the anti-ai argument frequently centers around the idea that AI art "has no soul" then it is easy to point out that a banana taped to a wall doesn't have any soul either.

 

[kreemi_pi]

Apparently, the newest thing that's got everybody up in arms is Tilly Norwood, an AI "actress" that has suddenly made a splash in social media and has some real actors alarmed.

I haven't done enough homework on this issue to have much of an opinion, but it does have some interesting erotic implications. It's very easy to imagine the Internet becoming populated by AI erotic performers or partners with whom one can interact. The CGI is so good now that it is genuinely difficult to tell what's real and what's not.

Naturally, the stories gave me a plot bunny for an AI erotica performer and her adventures. Call her Jilly Pornwood.

People on Lit should love her. Virtual sex is kinda our thing. She lives in our world.

 

[alohadave]

But when the anti-ai argument frequently centers around the idea that AI art "has no soul" then it is easy to point out that a banana taped to a wall doesn't have any soul either.

Whether you agree or not, the banana is a little deeper than fruit taped to a wall.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Whether you agree or not, the banana is a little deeper than fruit taped to a wall.

The banana is proof that not enough parents read "The Emperor's new clothes" to their children.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Let's not forget the time the janitor cleaned up the trash.... eerr...I mean the "art installation".

https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-janitor-threw-away-a-boozy-art-exhibit-thinking-it-was-trash/