Earlier this month, Hollywood introduced its first AI-generated actress: Tilly Norwood. She looks like any Hollywood performer: photogenic and confident, but Tilly isn’t real. She was created by Particle6, a London-based production company founded by Dutch producer Eline van der Velden, as an experiment in what the studio calls “synthetic performance.”
The idea behind Tilly is to explore how artificial intelligence could support creative industries rather than replace them. But that argument hasn’t convinced everyone. The American actors’ union SAG-AFTRA strongly criticized this project, warning that AI performers could threaten both artistic integrity and employment in the film industry. Their main concern is how these systems are trained, often using recordings of real actors who never consented to being digitally replicated.
Beyond this issue, Tilly’s debut raises a deeper question about creativity itself. Acting has always been rooted in human experience: how people express emotion, respond to others, and turn lived moments into art. Acting can become so iconic (like Titanic ”I am flying” bow-scene), that they become art itself. An AI model can maybe imitate the structure of such a performance, but it doesn’t understand why a scene is moving or what a gesture means. It follows patterns; it doesn’t feel them or understand what a human sees when actors perform.
At the same time, I don’t think AI-generated performers should be dismissed entirely. Every technological shift in film, from sound to CGI, was met with fear before it became standard practice. Tilly might end up being a useful tool like CGI, but only if we stay clear about where technology ends and human expression begins. We almost always understand this when CGI is used as humans.
The experiment forces us to ask what we actually value in performance: efficiency or empathy, precision or presence. As the line between real and artificial continues to blur, the challenge will be keeping storytelling grounded in something that still feels human.
What do you think about Tilly Norwood, can she become the next Hollywood actress?
Actually, I enjoyed your blog—it did really make me consider where technology and creativity overlap. Your account of Tilly Norwood wasn’t so much about whether or not AI would take over as actors, but about what we value in art and performance. My take is that your case is absolutely correct that acting is founded on real human experience—AI can duplicate expressions, but it can’t feel them, and it’s that which makes all the difference.
I also thought your comparison to past innovations like CGI was smart. It shows that technology doesn’t have to be the enemy, as long as we’re clear about where the human part still matters. Overall, it’s a really balanced and thought-provoking take on something that could easily turn into a one-sided debate.
Hey Fabian,
I like your neutral position. With these kinds of topics, I usually prefer to choose a side. While I was reading your post, I found myself building arguments and trying to decide which one would hold. Then you mentioned CGI and how it became accepted, which made me think that this development might follow a similar path.
I believe it will happen step by step. First, stunt actors might be replaced, then more difficult or complex scenes. And at some point, if AI becomes advanced enough, we might see entire performances generated by it. It all depends on what is technically possible and what audiences are willing to accept.
In the end, the film industry is still a business. Studios will do whatever there is an audience for. If an AI-generated actress can reach the same quality as current performers, I don’t see why it wouldn’t happen. In the name of art, I would argue against it, but from a business point of view it feels almost inevitable. I’m not in favor of Tilly Norwood becoming the next Hollywood actress, but I am afraid that it will happen.