AI Actress Tilly Norwood Sparks Controversy and Debate in Hollywood

AI Actress Tilly Norwood Draws Controversy From Hollywood as Creators Double Down

First, they created an AI actress. Now they've created an entire AI talent agency. Just when you thought Hollywood couldn't get any weirder, an AI-generated actor now has a real agent in a bid to compete for jobs. Tilly Norwood is a completely digital actress whose creator, Particle6, is catching serious heat for trying to get her representation. Eline Van der Velden, the CEO of the AI company behind Tilly, tried to play it cool, calling the creation "a piece of art" and not a replacement for human beings. Unsurprisingly, actual Hollywood actors are not amused. As reported by Variety, stars are furious at the idea of competing with an algorithm. Actress Melissa Barrera put it bluntly on her Instagram account, telling any agent who signs an AI tool to "read the room" and that she hopes their human clients "drop their a$$." The entertainment industry is battling over whether AI tools will replace humans. AI has been a major issue in acting strikes, and earlier this year, a group of Hollywood actors petitioned to outlaw AI training on copyrighted work. Particle6 has been criticized over the issue of traditional Hollywood agent representation for AI creations. Recently, Van der Velden announced that the company is spinning off an agency for AI creations called Xicoia. But that doesn't mean the main agency would stop providing traditional representation for its AI creations. "Xicoia creates and manages the AI talent (think IP management) but they could also license out for mainstream representation, where required/requested and where appropriate," a spokesperson for Particle6 told CNET. In a social media post, Van Der Velden said, "I also believe AI characters should be judged as part of their own genre, on their own merits, rather than compared directly with human actors."

What AI-generated Tilly Norwood reveals about digital culture, ethics and the responsibilities of creators

Toronto Metropolitan University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR. Imagine an actor who never ages, never walks off set or demands a higher salary. That's the promise behind Tilly Norwood, a fully AI-generated "actress" currently being courted by Hollywood's top talent agencies. Her synthetic presence has ignited a media firestorm, denounced as an existential threat to human performers by some and hailed as a breakthrough in digital creativity by others. But beneath the headlines lies a deeper tension. The binaries used to debate Norwood -- human versus machine, threat versus opportunity, good versus bad -- flatten complex questions of art, justice and creative power into soundbites. The question isn't whether the future will be synthetic; it already is. Our challenge now is to ensure that it is also meaningfully human. All agree Tilly isn't human Ironically, at the centre of this polarizing debate is a rare moment of agreement: all sides acknowledge that Tilly is not human. Her creator, Eline Van der Velden, the CEO of AI production company Particle6, insists that Norwood was never meant to replace a real actor. Critics agree, albeit in protest. SAG-AFTRA, the union representing actors in the U.S., responded with: "It's a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers -- without permission or compensation. It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion, and from what we've seen, audiences aren't interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience." Their position is rooted in recent history: In 2023, actors went on strike over AI. The resulting agreement secured protections around consent and compensation. So if both sides insist Tilly isn't human, the controversy, then, isn't just about what Tilly is, it's about what she represents. Complexity as a starting point Norwood represents more than novelty. She's emblematic of a larger reckoning with how rapidly artificial intelligence is reshaping our lives and the creative sector. The velocity of change is dizzying, and now the question is how do we shape the hybrid world we've already entered? It can feel disorienting trying to parse ethics, rights and responsibilities while being bombarded by newness. Especially when that "newness" comes in a form that unnerves us: a near-human likeness that triggers long-standing cultural discomfort. Indeed, Norwood may be a textbook case of the "uncanny valley," a term coined by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori to describe the unease people feel when something looks almost human, but not quite. But if all sides agree that Tilly isn't human, what happens when audiences still feel something real while watching her on screen? If emotional resonance and storytelling are considered uniquely human traits, maybe the threat posed by synthetic actors has been overstated. On the other hand, who hasn't teared up in a Pixar film? A character doesn't have to feel emotion to evoke it. Still, the public conversation remains polarized. As my colleague Owais Lightwala, assistant professor in the School of Performance at Toronto Metropolitan University, puts it: "The conversation around AI right now is so binary that it limits our capacity for real thinking. What we need is to be obsessed with complexity." Synthetic actors aren't inherently villains or saviours, Lightwala tells me, they're a tool, a new medium. The challenge lies in how we build the infrastructures around them, such as rights, ownership and distribution. He points out that while some celebrities see synthetic actors as job threats, most actors already struggle for consistent work. "We ask the one per cent how they feel about losing power, but what about the 99 per cent who never had access to that power in the first place?" Too often missing from this debate is what these tools might make possible for the creators we rarely hear from. The current media landscape is already deeply inequitable. As Lightwala notes, most people never get the chance to realize their creative potential -- not for lack of talent, but due to barriers like access, capital, mentorship and time. Now, some of those barriers might finally lower. With AI tools, more people may get the opportunity to create. Of course, that doesn't mean AI will automatically democratize creativity. While tools are more available, attention and influence remain scarce. Sarah Watling, co-founder and CEO of JaLi Research, a Toronto-based AI facial animation company, offers a more cautionary perspective. She argues that as AI becomes more common, we risk treating it like a utility, essential yet invisible. In her view, the inevitable AI economy won't be a creator economy, it will be a utility commodity. And "when things become utilities," she warns, "they usually become monopolized." Where do we go from here? We need to pivot away from reactionary fear narratives, like Lightwala suggests. Instead of shutting down innovation, we need to continue to experiment. We need to use this moment, when public attention is focused on the rights of actors and the shape of culture, to rethink what was already broken in the industry and allow space for new creative modalities to emerge. Platforms and studios must take the lead in setting transparent, fair policies for how synthetic content is developed, attributed and distributed. In parallel, we need to push creative institutions, unions and agencies to collaborate in the co-design of ethical and contractual guardrails now, before precedents get set in stone, putting consent, fair attribution and compensation at the centre. And creators, for their part, must use these tools not just to replicate what came before, but to imagine what hasn't been possible until now. That responsibility is as much creative as it is technical. The future will be synthetic. Our task now is to build pathways, train talent, fuel imagination, and have nuanced, if difficult, conversations. Because while technology shapes what's possible, creators and storytellers have the power to shape what matters.

Would you watch a film with an AI actor? What Tilly Norwood tells us about art - and labour rights

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU. Tilly Norwood officially launched her acting career this month at the Zurich Film Festival. She first appeared in the short film AI Commissioner, released in July. Her producer, Eline Van der Velden, claims Norwood has already attracted the attention of multiple agents. But Norwood was generated with artificial intelligence (AI). The AI "actor" 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. A post about the film's launch on Norwood's Facebook page read, I may be AI generated, but I'm feeling very real emotions right now. I am so excited for what's coming next! The reception from the industry has been far from warm. Actors - and audiences - have come out in force against Norwood. So, is this the future of film, or is it a gimmick? 'Tilly Norwood is not an actor' Norwood's existence introduces a new type of technology to Hollywood. Unlike CGI (computer generated imagery), where a performer's movements are captured and transformed into a digital character, 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. 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. Her arrival comes less than two years after the artist strikes that brought Hollywood to a stand-still, with AI a central issue to the disputes. The strike ended with a historic agreement placing limitations around digital replicas of actors' faces and voices, but did not completely ban "synthetic fakes". SAG-AFTRA, the union representing actors in the United States, has said: To be clear, 'Tilly Norwood' is not an actor; it's a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers - without permission or compensation. Additionally, real actors can set boundaries and are protected by agents, unions and intimacy coordinators who negotiate what is shown on screen. Norwood can be made to perform anything in any context - becoming a vessel for whatever creators or producers choose to depict. 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. Is it art? We consider creativity to be a human quality. Art is generally understood as an expression of human experience. Norwood's performances do not come from such creativity or human experience, but from a database of pre-existing performances. 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. AI has no such limits: just look at Google's chess-playing program AlphaZero, which learnt by playing millions of games of chess, more than any human can play in a life time. Norwood's training can absorb hundreds of performances in a way no single actor could. How can that be compared to an actor's performance - a craft they have developed throughout their training and career? Van der Velden argues Norwood is "a new tool" for creators. Tools have previously been a paintbrush or a typewriter, which have helped facilitate or extend the creativity of painting or writing. Here, Norwood as the tool performs the creative act itself. The AI is the tool and the artist. Will audiences accept AI actors? Norwood's survival depends not on industry hype but on audience reception. So far, humans show a negative bias against AI-generated art. Studies across art forms have shown people prefer works when told they were created by humans, even if the output is identical. We don't know yet if that bias could fade. A younger generation raised on streaming may be less concerned with whether an actor is "real" and more with immediate access, affordability or how quickly they can consume the content. If audiences do accept AI actors, the consequences go beyond taste. There would be profound effects on labour. Entry- and mid-level acting jobs could vanish. AI actors could shrink the demand for whole creative teams - from make-up and costume to lighting and set design - since their presence reduces the need for on-set artistry. Economics could prove decisive. For studios, AI actors are cheaper, more controllable and free from human needs or unions. Even if audiences are ambivalent, financial pressures could steer production companies towards AI. The bigger picture Tilly Norwood is not a question of the future of Hollywood. She is a cultural stress-test - a case study in how much we value human creativity. What do we want art to be? Is it about efficiency, or human expression? If we accept synthetic actors, what stops us from replacing other creative labour - writers, musicians, designers - with AI trained on their work, but with no consent or remuneration? We are at a crossroads. Do we regulate the use of AI in the arts, resist it, or embrace it? Resistance may not be realistic. AI is here, and some audiences will accept it. The risk is that in choosing imitation over human artistry, we reshape culture in ways that cannot be easily reversed.

After AI Actress Tilly Norwood, Now There is an AI-Generated Movie Director

Despite reports of Hollywood agents circling an AI-generated actress by the name of Tilly Norwood horrifying many people, now a respected film producer has announced a feature he says is "the first film directed by a virtual director." Italian producer Andrea Iervolino, known for films such as Ferrari and To the Bone, has announced The Sweet Idleness. The project comes at a time when the entertainment industry is actively debating the role of artificial intelligence in filmmaking and performance. The film is directed by "FellinAI," an AI system created to "celebrate the poetic and dreamlike language of great European cinema." FellinAI operates within the Andrea Iervolino Company AI division, with Iervolino serving as the "human-in-the-loop" -- a supervisor who guides and monitors the technology to ensure creative consistency. According to a synopsis, The Sweet Idleness imagines "a tomorrow in which only 1% of humanity still works, transforming labor into a symbolic ritual, while the rest of the population lives in the freedom and leisure provided by machines." The film's world features "cathedral-factories, mechanical clowns, and surreal processions," portraying the "last workers" as "the final masks of a humanity that resists the insolence of labor." The cast will come from Actor+, an internal agency of The Andrea Iervolino Company that collaborates with real performers to generate digital likenesses. These "digital actors" are designed to have a presence both on-screen and beyond. The company describes this concept as "Digital Human's Existency -- the 'social and narrative existence' of the digital actor in the real and online world." Andrea Biglione, director of Italian films such as Almeno tu nell'universo and Drony, developed the FellinAI system and serves as an additional "Human-in-the-Loop," described as "a bridge between algorithmic intuition and human artistic sensitivity." "For the first time, the traditional roles of the film industry are being redefined," Iervolino says in a statement per Variety. "With The Sweet Idleness we celebrate the beginning of a new chapter in the history of cinema. Our vision is simple and at the same time revolutionary: to unite human sensitivity with the creative power of artificial intelligence in order to tell stories that no one has ever imagined before. FellinAI is a director who never sleeps, while Actor+ is a company of actors who live beyond the screen. It is the future, but also a return to the original poetry of cinema." He emphasizes that the project "is not intended to replace traditional cinema. Rather, it is an alternative method of creation." The announcement follows controversy surrounding Tilly Norwood, an AI-generated actress created by technologist and performer Eline Van der Velden. News that Norwood was being considered for representation by talent agencies sparked significant backlash from within the acting community. "SAG-AFTRA believes creativity is, and should remain, human-centered. The union is opposed to the replacement of human performers by synthetics," the guild said in a statement. "To be clear, 'Tilly Norwood' is not an actor, it's a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers -- without permission or compensation. It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion and, from what we've seen, audiences aren't interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience." Actors Emily Blunt and Whoopi Goldberg also criticized the development. Blunt called it "terrifying," urging agencies to "stop taking away our human connection." Goldberg remarked, "You are suddenly up against something that's been generated with 5,000 other actors... so it's a little bit of an unfair advantage." With many outraged over AI players, the litmus test will be whether audiences actually like the synthetic output. Part of watching a movie is temporarily suspending the viewer's disbelief, and it is difficult to see how an AI-generated performer can do that.

Would you watch a film with an AI actor? What Tilly Norwood tells us about art -- and labor rights

Tilly Norwood officially launched her acting career this month at the Zurich Film Festival. She first appeared in the short film AI Commissioner, released in July. Her producer, Eline Van der Velden, claims Norwood has already attracted the attention of multiple agents. But Norwood was generated with artificial intelligence (AI). The AI "actor" 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. A post about the film's launch on Norwood's Facebook page read, "I may be AI-generated, but I'm feeling very real emotions right now. I am so excited for what's coming next!" The reception from the industry has been far from warm. Actors -- and audiences -- have come out in force against Norwood. So is this the future of film, or is it a gimmick? 'Tilly Norwood is not an actor' Norwood's existence introduces a new type of technology to Hollywood. Unlike CGI (computer generated imagery), where a performer's movements are captured and transformed into a digital character, 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. 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. Her arrival comes less than two years after the artist strikes that brought Hollywood to a standstill, with AI a central issue to the disputes. The strike ended with a historic agreement placing limitations around digital replicas of actors' faces and voices, but did not completely ban "synthetic fakes." SAG-AFTRA, the union representing actors in the United States, has said: "To be clear, 'Tilly Norwood' is not an actor; it's a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers -- without permission or compensation." Additionally, real actors can set boundaries and are protected by agents, unions and intimacy coordinators who negotiate what is shown on screen. Norwood can be made to perform anything in any context -- becoming a vessel for whatever creators or producers choose to depict. 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. Is it art? We consider creativity to be a human quality. Art is generally understood as an expression of human experience. Norwood's performances do not come from such creativity or human experience, but from a database of pre-existing performances. 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. AI has no such limits: just look at Google's chess-playing program AlphaZero, which learned by playing millions of games of chess, more than any human can play in a lifetime. Norwood's training can absorb hundreds of performances in a way no single actor could. How can that be compared to an actor's performance -- a craft they have developed throughout their training and career? Van der Velden argues Norwood is "a new tool" for creators. Tools have previously been a paintbrush or a typewriter, which have helped facilitate or extend the creativity of painting or writing. Here, Norwood as the tool performs the creative act itself. The AI is the tool and the artist. Will audiences accept AI actors? Norwood's survival depends not on industry hype but on audience reception. So far, humans show a negative bias against AI-generated art. Studies across art forms have shown people prefer works when told they were created by humans, even if the output is identical. We don't know yet if that bias could fade. A younger generation raised on streaming may be less concerned with whether an actor is "real" and more with immediate access, affordability or how quickly they can consume the content. If audiences do accept AI actors, the consequences go beyond taste. There would be profound effects on labor. Entry- and mid-level acting jobs could vanish. AI actors could shrink the demand for whole creative teams -- from make-up and costume to lighting and set design -- since their presence reduces the need for on-set artistry. Economics could prove decisive. For studios, AI actors are cheaper, more controllable and free from human needs or unions. Even if audiences are ambivalent, financial pressures could steer production companies toward AI. The bigger picture Tilly Norwood is not a question of the future of Hollywood. She is a cultural stress-test -- a case study in how much we value human creativity. What do we want art to be? Is it about efficiency, or human expression? If we accept synthetic actors, what stops us from replacing other creative labor -- writers, musicians, designers -- with AI trained on their work, but with no consent or remuneration? We are at a crossroads. Do we regulate the use of AI in the arts, resist it, or embrace it? Resistance may not be realistic. AI is here, and some audiences will accept it. The risk is that in choosing imitation over human artistry, we reshape culture in ways that cannot be easily reversed. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.