So Hollywood’s losing its collective shit over a fake actress named Tilly Norwood, and honestly, I can’t decide if this is the most depressing thing I’ve read all week or the most predictable. Probably both. Pour yourself something strong – this one’s a doozy.
Tilly Norwood doesn’t exist. She’s pixels and algorithms, cooked up by some Dutch producer named Eline Van der Velden who runs the AI division of a production company called Particle6. Tilly’s got 40,000 Instagram followers, a convincing face, and apparently the kind of headshots that make casting directors reach for their phones. The only problem? She’s about as real as the promises my last three editors made about paying me on time.
Van der Velden unveiled this digital darling at the Zurich Film Festival in September and is now shopping around for an agent to represent her. An agent. For a computer program. Let that sink in while you contemplate the absurdity of our timeline.
Emily Blunt found out about Tilly during a Variety podcast and had the most human reaction possible: “Good Lord, we’re screwed.” She followed that up with a plea to agencies not to represent synthetic performers, begging them to “please stop taking away our human connection.” Which, you know, fair point from someone who’s spent decades actually learning how to act, actually showing up on set at 5 AM, actually dealing with difficult directors and craft services that run out of coffee.
SAG-AFTRA came out swinging with a statement that basically amounted to “hell no.” They pointed out that Tilly isn’t an actor – she’s a character generated by a program trained on the work of countless professional performers without permission or compensation. No life experience to draw from, no emotion, just stolen performances repackaged as innovation.
And here’s where it gets interesting in that special way that makes you want to laugh and cry simultaneously.
Van der Velden responded to the backlash on Tilly’s Instagram account – because of course a fake person has to defend her own existence through social media – claiming that Tilly isn’t a replacement for human beings but “a creative work, a piece of art.” You know, like a painting. Or a sculpture. Except paintings don’t audition for roles that would otherwise go to people who need to eat and pay rent.
The “it’s art” defense is the same tired excuse every tech grifter pulls out when they’re disrupting something people actually care about. Uber wasn’t destroying taxi driver livelihoods, it was “reimagining transportation.” Airbnb wasn’t gutting urban housing markets, it was “democratizing hospitality.” And now AI-generated actors aren’t putting real performers out of work, they’re just “sparking conversation.”
Well, congratulations. You’ve sparked a conversation. It’s just not the one you wanted.
The timing of this whole circus is particularly choice, coming the same week OpenAI dropped Sora 2, which can create increasingly believable videos. Because what we really needed was more ways to manufacture reality on demand. The writers and actors saw this coming from a mile away, which is why both the Writers Guild and SAG-AFTRA fought hard for contractual protections against being replaced by algorithms.
SAG-AFTRA’s statement made it crystal clear: you can’t just deploy synthetic performers without notice and bargaining. Which is union-speak for “try it and we’ll bury you in paperwork and bad press.”
But let’s get real for a second. This isn’t really about whether Tilly Norwood is art or not. It’s about the same thing everything in this godforsaken industry is about: money. Because here’s the beautiful truth that Van der Velden and her ilk don’t want to admit: a synthetic performer doesn’t need health insurance. Doesn’t need breaks. Doesn’t get pregnant. Doesn’t age out of roles. Doesn’t have opinions about the script. Doesn’t have a salary that increases with experience. Doesn’t have an agent taking fifteen percent.
From a producer’s perspective, Tilly Norwood is the perfect employee. She’ll work 24/7, never complain, and her licensing fees probably cost less than what they’d pay a B-list actress for a single film.
From a human perspective, she’s a preview of a future where “actor” joins “stenographer” and “switchboard operator” in the graveyard of obsolete professions.
What kills me – and I mean really grinds my gears in that special way reserved for truly spectacular hypocrisy – is the framing. Van der Velden wants credit for creating art while simultaneously seeking commercial representation for that art. You can’t have it both ways. Either Tilly is a creative work meant to provoke thought and discussion, in which case she belongs in galleries and film festivals as an exhibit, or she’s a commercial product meant to generate revenue by taking roles from human actors.
Spoiler alert: it’s the second one. Always has been.
The really depressing part? This is just the beginning. Tilly Norwood is crude compared to what’s coming. Give it five years – hell, give it two – and we’ll have synthetic performers so convincing that audiences won’t know the difference. They’ll have AI-generated voices that capture every subtle inflection, AI-generated movements that nail physical comedy, AI-generated emotional ranges that make you cry during the third act.
And someone, somewhere, is already working on the AI director to tell them what to do.
The suits will love it. Infinite content, zero labor disputes, complete creative control, and profit margins that would make a Wall Street banker weep with joy. They’ll dress it up in the language of innovation and efficiency and “giving audiences what they want.” They’ll point to metrics showing that viewers don’t care whether the actress on screen is real or generated.
And you know what? They might be right about that last part. We’ve already proven we’ll watch pretty much anything if it’s packaged correctly. Reality TV that’s scripted. “Documentary” footage that’s staged. Social media influencers whose entire personalities are manufactured for engagement.
Why not fake actors?
The thing is, Emily Blunt’s right to be scared. We all should be. Not because AI-generated performers are coming – they’re already here – but because we’re watching in real-time as another piece of human work gets automated away, and the people doing it are calling it progress.
Van der Velden says Tilly “sparks conversation.” Sure. So does a fire in a crowded theater. Doesn’t make it a good idea.
SAG-AFTRA says audiences aren’t interested in computer-generated content untethered from the human experience. I hope they’re right. I really do. But I’ve seen enough of this industry to know that what audiences say they want and what they’ll actually consume are two very different things.
The real test will come when the first AI-generated performer lands a major role. When some studio decides to cast Tilly or her digital cousins in a blockbuster. When the box office numbers come in and the bean counters start doing the math on replacing the entire cast with algorithms.
That’s when we’ll find out if human connection actually matters to audiences, or if we’re all just lying to ourselves about what we value.
Me? I’m rooting for the humans. The real ones. The ones who show up and do the work and bring something to the role that no amount of training data can replicate. The ones who have bad days and good days and that ineffable quality that makes you believe what you’re seeing on screen.
But I’m not betting on them.
I’ve lived too long to bet against greed disguised as innovation.
Source: Hollywood is not taking kindly to the AI-generated actress Tilly Norwood | TechCrunch