In late 2025 the entertainment world was rocked by an unexpected creation: Tilly Norwood, a fully AI-generated character marketed as an actress. The announcement, made by Xicoia (the AI division of Particle6), ignited debate about authenticity, labour, ethics and the future of performance (Washington Post).
Origins and Ambitions
Tilly Norwood was unveiled publicly in September 2025 at the Zurich Summit during the Zurich Film Festival, where Xicoia’s founder Eline Van der Velden pitched her as a “hyperreal digital star” (Washington Post). Van der Velden reportedly envisions Norwood as the next Natalie Portman or Scarlett Johansson. One early project attributed to Norwood is a short sketch titled AI Commissioner, produced using multiple AI tools and written in part by ChatGPT. The sketch featured 16 AI-generated characters and in two months amassed around 200,000 views (Washington Post).
Despite her non-human status, Norwood is presented with a full digital persona. She has an Instagram account with tens of thousands of followers, and posts depict her doing ordinary human things—drinking coffee, appearing on red carpets, delivering screen tests. Van der Velden claims that using Tilly in productions could reduce certain costs by up to 90 percent (Washington Post).
Backlash from Hollywood
The reaction from the acting community was swift and often fierce. The actors’ union SAG-AFTRA released a statement condemning synthetic performers, arguing “creativity is, and should remain, human-centered” and warning that Tilly’s existence threatens to undermine the value of human artistry (EW). They further emphasised that Norwood is not an actor but a program trained on the work of real performers—without permission or compensation.
Prominent figures also weighed in. Emily Blunt called the situation “really, really scary” and implored agencies to refuse to represent AI characters (The Guardian). Whoopi Goldberg questioned the fairness of competing against a construct “generated with 5,000 other actors” (Washington Post). Actress Mara Wilson asked why none of the numerous women whose likenesses may have been used to train Tilly were ever cast instead (Washington Post). Natasha Lyonne urged a boycott of agencies that signed AI actors. The Gersh Agency publicly announced it would not represent Norwood (Washington Post).
Critics also criticised the aesthetics and performance quality. The Guardian described Norwood’s debut work as technically impressive yet emotionally vacant, remarking that her mouth sometimes “blurred into a single white block” (The Guardian).
Artistic Defense and Technological Framing
Van der Velden and her team have defended Tilly as a new kind of creative object rather than a replacement for humans. She argues that AI characters should be evaluated in their own genre, like animation or CGI, and that many objections stem from fear of disruption. On social media she wrote that Norwood “is not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work — a piece of art” (Washington Post).
Xicoia sees Tilly as just the beginning. Reports suggest plans for multiple AI characters operating within a shared universe for film, TV, gaming and interactive media (Washington Post).
Stakes: Ethics, Labour, Identity
The Tilly Norwood saga raises urgent questions about labour and authorship in creative industries. If synthetic performers gain legitimacy, what happens to human actors whose opportunities may decline? The unease is not just about job competition; it is also about consent, compensation and the reuse of likenesses. Many argue that training data for such AI systems often draws from existing human performances without compensating those original creators (The Guardian).
Another issue is authenticity. Acting has traditionally relied on lived experience, emotional nuance and vulnerability. Critics point out that no matter how advanced AI becomes, it lacks the capacity to suffer, to love, to be haunted by memory. Some fear that overreliance on AI performers could erode the emotional resonance of storytelling (Washington Post).
There is also a philosophical tension: do audiences care whether an actor is “real” if the illusion is convincing? Van der Velden argues many do not, claiming that viewers focus more on the story than the flesh-and-blood behind it (Washington Post). Yet others argue that the art of cinema is premised on shared humanity between performer and viewer, and that removing the human intermediary risks hollowing out the medium.
Where Do We Go from Here?
As of now, Tilly Norwood remains controversial rather than mainstream. Some agencies are reported to be in talks to represent her (Washington Post). But many actors and industry bodies have signalled that they will resist such approaches, and that enforcement of AI protections will be crucial in upcoming contract negotiations.
The Tilly Norwood experiment may come to be seen as a test case, a flashpoint in the clash between new technology and traditional arts. Whether she becomes a footnote or a turning point depends on how the industry, unions, regulators and audiences respond.