AI ‘Actor’ Tilly Norwood Isn’t Real, But Could Present Real Problems for Hollywood

AI talent studio Xicoia, launched by AI production company Particle6, recently unveiled an AI-generated, photorealistic character called Tilly Norwood at the Zurich Film Festival, sparking outrage from actors and the Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTA).

AI-generated characters filling in for human actors is one of the primary concerns SAG-AFTA voiced in 2023 when they fought Hollywood studios for protection against AI-generated content. We caught up with University of Virginia Darden School of Business professor Anthony Palomba to get his thoughts on whether Tilly Norwood will resonate with audiences and the unique value that human actors bring to the screen. (Palomba also spoke about the potential disruption to the industry on Darden’s Good Disruption podcast in 2023.)

How do you think audiences will connect with AI “actors” like Tilly Norwood?

I think Tilly Norwood is ultimately a novelty, or a creative work, as stated by her creator. Creativity will continue to be fundamentally human-centric, though I suspect this technique could evolve into its own genre. After all, there are AI film festivals.

Much of the value we ascribe to figures like Leonardo DiCaprio or Martin Scorsese is determined by audiences, and I’m not yet convinced how much something like Tilly Norwood can truly connect with people. Part of the reason why beloved actors are stellar is that they produce remarkable art that is able to emotionally move and challenge people. It is an experience for both the actor and the audience. As an AI, Norwood cannot have experiences, and she remains largely unrelatable to current generations. However, Gen Alpha will grow up alongside AI and may be more open to what AI characters have to offer. I think that this is an interesting trend to consider.

I imagine Norwood will be positioned more as a brand integration, as she herself is a corporate brand of sorts. We don’t really know much about her purposes, as she was kind of just “born.”

How much of a threat are AI actors to actual human actors, or the way business is conducted in Hollywood?

Norwood is gaining attention precisely because she is an AI, but it’s unclear whether the character can sustain that momentum. Is her presence truly interesting? Similar cases such as FN Meka  and Lil Miquela show that AI personas can attract intrigue, but the interest often lies in our reactions to them, rather than the characters themselves. Moreover, it’s difficult for them to break through toward competing with humans (of course, this is subject to change). She can be signed by a talent agency, but then what? Is she more like the Green M&M than Taylor Swift? More Starbucks siren than Ariana Grande? We follow creatives because we’re impressed by their own work that comes from them. Norwood has no “self” that can have experiences or create work.

These issues I think will ultimately plague her brand and ability to compete with actors for business.

On the flipside, Norwood is way cheaper than Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman. She’ll never get sick, and she can work as long or as hard as necessary. She could also change her look and potentially take jobs from others. Does this mean that someone is coding at all hours of the day, based on a director’s feedback? Or can the director give her prompts? Well, if the director gives her prompts, how much work  and time does that take?

I would imagine she wouldn’t be subject to union regulations, which means that movies and creative products could be churned out rapidly. If art is created at a great volume, does it accrue more or less value? Scarcity is a powerful mechanism in art. It is why when Eminem,  Adele, The Weeknd, or Taylor Swift drops an album, it is a massive deal, as it doesn’t happen often. Would Norwood risk overexposure with the ability to  churn out so much content (Taylor Swift might be disproving my concern here)?

There’s something about the ability to make imperfect art that represents being human. It reminds me of the Japanese broken pottery art that is known as Kintsugi, where pottery is broken and fashioned together, and the cracks are cemented with lacquered gold or silver. What makes art, performance, or storytelling interesting is often the imperfection that makes it feel alive. If Norwood’s “performance” is flawless, that’s something most of us can’t relate to. And when AI is imperfect, its imperfections can be creepy, like anatomical distortions or unnatural lighting. The uncanny valley problem is still present with AI characters.

Are there ethical issues that studios and content creators will have to consider?

This situation could challenge unions’ decisions on work hours and shift expectations for creatives supporting AI. As the gig economy evolves, perceptions of work hours may change. Additionally, the training process for the actress is unclear and could involve unknown legal concerns. Nothing illegal is being done here, at least not on the surface, unless there has been copyright or trademark infringements or other related issues.

There’s a larger conversation here around the decline of the celebrity, and that we’re increasingly loathe to place people on pedestals based solely on talent as much as we used to. For every Lady Gaga, Jenna Ortega, Bruno Mars, or Kendrick Lamar, there are countless influencers and lesser-known actors who thrive in today’s media landscape and have their own tribes and communities that follow them. The ability to be followed is arguably more important than the ability to cultivate a talent, which takes scores of hours and practice to achieve.

Audience fragmentation is driving this type of innovation, as people are less inclined to consume content communally and instead seek experiences that feel hyper-personalized. For many, movies and TV series now seem like risky bets. I may not like a movie or a TV series, and I may waste a few hours figuring that out. In the face of today’s uncertainties, climate change, wars, and domestic challenges, audiences gravitate toward content that they know will make them feel good. One of the reasons why TikTok is so powerful because it is frictionless, delivering each user a highly personalized feed that creates the illusion that this platform “gets us.”

Technology companies excel at creating straightforward, seamless, and appealing user experiences, which encourage continued engagement with their products and services.  Yet good art is rarely frictionless. It is meant to challenge us, to unsettle assumptions, and to force us into the grey spaces where truths are reconfigured. After an artistic encounter, we arrive at our own denouement, sometimes wiser, but hopefully always changed in some way. So, the question becomes: is Tilly Norwood less a breakthrough in creativity than a testament to our growing need to be perpetually satiated, never challenged?

In theory, Norwood and other AI characters offer a way to get to the end product – entertainment – without the pesky time and effort that it takes a human to develop talent and expertise in the art of acting. What are the implications for humanity if our resistance to difficulty, change, challenge, or aversion are completely eliminated? Would this suppress certain emotions and potentially weaken our ability to cope with adversity, making it harder to process negative feelings or address challenges effectively? Tech companies aim to eliminate suffering and discomfort, but these experiences are essential to being human. AI optimization overlooks this, arguably rendering it not so optimized in the first place.