She looks like any other starlet; a pretty, doe-eyed, long-haired brunette, primed to play the ingénue in the next Richard Curtis rom-com. So why has Tilly Norwood become a pariah in Hollywood?
Tilly was unveiled by Particle6 Productions at the Zurich Summit, an offshoot of the Zurich Film Festival, last month and her debut has caused quite an upset. A tech company unveiling an actress is strange - but not when you learn that the AI-generated Tilly Norwood is not even a real person, never mind a real actress. And Particle6 - which is, rather worryingly, supported with funds awarded by the UK Global Screen Fund - intends to unleash more Tilly Norwoods on the world via Xicoia, their 'talent studio for AI generation'.
Watch a comedy sketch featuring AI 'actor' Tilly Norwood
The company’s Dutch founder Eline Van Der Velden insisted that Tilly is "not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work" while simultaneously "seeking representation" for her creation. Understandably, the furore has been loud and robust; after all, the film industry’s use of AI was one of the main bones of contention in both the writers’ and actors’ strikes that ground the TV and movie industry to a halt in 2023. Actors Emily Blunt, Ralph Ineson, Whoopi Goldberg and many others have bluntly aired their opinion on Tilly, while actors’ unions Equity and SAG-Aftra both slammed the development, with the latter releasing a statement saying "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."
Why pay Timothée Chalamet $20 million to smoulder, or Tom Cruise $50 mil to do all his own stunts, when an AI-generated actor can do the same thing for a fraction of the cost - and none of the diva demands?
A publicity stunt for a small-fry production company? Perhaps. Yet while you can laugh off Tilly Norwood, claim that AI actors would never catch on, and insist that if you look closely enough you can tell that she’s not human. But what about in five years’ time, when technology has further advanced and those little creases that cause an ‘uncanny valley’ effect can be ironed out? Will the new, updated Tilly Norwood be more accepted by mainstream audiences? It’s not beyond the realm of possibility. From the perspective of major studios, the focus is always the bottom line - and they could see AI actors as a cost-effective measure. Why pay Timothée Chalamet $20 million to smoulder, or Tom Cruise $50 mil to do all his own stunts, when an AI-generated actor can do the same thing for a fraction of the cost - and none of the diva demands? It sounds bonkers, but the landscape can shift dramatically in ten years.
Had such a blast filming some screen tests recently ✨
— Tilly Norwood (@TillyNorwood) October 1, 2025
Every day feels like a step closer to the big screen.
Can't wait to share more with you all soon… what role do you see me in? #AIActress #AIart #AICommisoner #hollywoodactress pic.twitter.com/NF8LKAROE5
The one pushback, of course, is the same argument that every creative artist has against AI, whether it’s writing, visual art or music. Artificial Intelligence may have some benefits, but it cannot replicate the human experience. And humans, for all our flaws, cannot relate to an emotion if it’s not delivered with real human intent.
Maybe that’s not enough to stop the creeping tide from rising. Earlier this week, Italian producer Andrea Iervolino (Ferrari), announced a film called The Sweet Idleness, heralding it as a "new chapter in the history of cinema". The film will be directed by FellinAI (!), an ‘artificial intelligence director’ conceived to "celebrate the poetic and dreamlike language of great European cinema." In the most ironic twist of all, the plot of the film - which stars ‘digital actors’ - is set in 2135, where only 1% of the human population work, and the rest live in the ‘sweet idleness’ promised in the title, letting machines do all the work. You know that saying ‘if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is?’ It would probably do us well to bear that in mind.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
