Are We Willing to Save Fulfilling Human Professions, Including Acting?
How Refusing to Work with Synthetic Actors May Shape the Future of Human Performance
by Sez Harmon
October 20, 2025
In the past few weeks, Tilly Norwood, an AI-generated, synthetic “actor” made global headlines when “her” production company, Particle6, publicly announced that talent agents are interested in signing Tilly for representation. Immediately, Particle6 and the company’s founder, Eline Van Der Velden, received public backlash from actors and international unions, including SAG-AFTRA, for jeopardizing the livelihoods of human performers and devaluing human artistry. Van der Velden responded and stated that Tilly is “not a replacement for people,” and instead a “new tool, a new paintbrush.” Like many people who care about how AI is used in entertainment, I don’t find this argument compelling. Here’s why I find the coverage on Tilly disconcerting, why I think it matters whether the acting industry refuses to work with synthetic actors, and how Tilly may be the canary in the coal mine for what’s to come in arts-based opportunities.
Particle6’s Public Portrayal of Tilly is Contradictory & Positions the “Actress” as a Profit-Oriented Acting Substitute
When I first read about Tilly and Particle6’s new AI talent studio, Xicoia, I noticed immediate red flags which indicate the production company’s intentions with this technology and its statements are mismatched. Although Van Der Velden and other Particle6 representatives are discussing Tilly as an additional tool or method to media production (much like CGI), they are simultaneously anthropomorphizing Tilly to appear like a human across social media platforms. Tilly now has an Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, where “she” posts in first-person perspective, with stories recounting her ability to learn and grow as a performer, better understand the world, and incorporate personal emotions into scenes. Yet this portrayal is disconnected from reality: Tilly does not possess high-level reasoning, consciousness, or emotional processing and is not considered Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or an Artificial Moral Agent (AMA) with aspirations or personhood, based on the current state of Xicoia’s technology. But I believe Particle6 is attempting to portray Tilly as an actress with these qualities to make it easier for the public to accept her role in new media; they are selling a false depiction of an AI “person” to get the public to believe Tilly is just another type of actor, in order to manufacture consent for her inclusion in the industry.
Not only is Tilly’s public portrayal detached from reality and divergent from Particle6’s statements, but the subtext of Tilly’s release is that she can replace compensating human actors for their performances. SAG-AFTRA already highlighted that the “actress” was trained on human works without due compensation, but it’s relevant to note that Particle6 is positioning Tilly to take jobs, not support or improve human acting. For instance, Xicoia could have created synthetic actors that look like existing humans for stunt purposes, which could protect stunt actors from hazardous environments or injuries. Instead, the studio chose to create an acting substitute. Additionally, we would be having a different conversation if the studio were creating AI-generated creatures or monsters that human actors cannot portray with makeup or CGI techniques - yet Xicoia is not putting resources toward developing what humans cannot accomplish on their own. Put bluntly, this is a profit-first approach to performance and one made because the studio views acting as a profession that is computationally predictable, one that does not require craft, talent, or years of experience founded on human emotion.
So…Who Cares? What’s One More Actor with an Unfair Advantage?
You may be asking yourself, “Why does it matter? How is Tilly any different from any other nepo baby in the industry with an unfair advantage getting roles? Surely this technology isn’t good enough to replace all actors in the industry…it’s just for show.” And to that I would say, yes - during this transition period, Tilly is unlikely to replace leading performers in major motion films. After all, she can barely blink in recent clips without buffering. Yet if we open the door to synthetic actor involvement in productions without limitations, I believe studios like Xicoia will amass the resources to get very good at creating AI actors who will take leading roles. Also, hiring these AI actors for movies, TV series, and advertisements will be very appealing to companies, if the costs associated with training, scheduling, filming, and editing humans get cut. And while the acting industry is riddled with skewed power dynamics and casting inequalities, synthetic actors will make it even more challenging for humans to get paid acting parts. Moreover, organizations like Particle6 are not focused on using Tilly or AI actors in limited contexts; they are not approaching signing conversations with explicit guardrails or rules to protect human actors long-term. Rather, the attitude seems to be, “let’s get attention, let’s get Tilly signed, and we can figure out how to spin the labor displacement effects after they’ve taken place.”
Tilly is a Signal for What’s to Come: Missing Human Agency & Fewer Fulfilling Careers
Along these lines, it’s important to preemptively discuss where and how we draw limits to AI technology writ large, if we want to keep certain jobs and disciplines around. Every day, companies are making incremental decisions about which human opportunities they will replace with AI to increase revenue or productivity and this pattern is steering societal fulfillment and engagement. AI-based experimentation is currently upheld as a given, worthwhile imperative, without widespread pushback on the environmental, social, and economic consequences, the carry-on effects it will have on our species and societies. We can choose to wipe out acting as a human profession, or make it more and more difficult to pursue, but ask yourself - why would we choose to do so? So another studio can make more money? So humans are left with even more limited career paths? To me, the “what if” of pushing the envelope in AI-enhanced production is not sufficient justification for using this technology, especially in the balance of potentially losing human professions, like acting, altogether.
Art molds our conceptions of possibility, our cultures, beliefs, and ambitions. Its creation changes our will to partake in the world and reflects our human experiences back to us. Art should not be flippantly transformed into an optimized process, absent human creativity and connection. Particle6 is indirectly asking audiences to cede our current relationship with art and imagine that computationally-driven entertainment and AI-generated works are inherently worthwhile. But I don’t wish to imagine a world made up of digital recreations of what we can do and be. We have the real thing; let’s not denigrate it further.
Sez Harmon is an AI Policy & Data Governance professional passionate about ensuring emerging technologies serve the public good and empower human talent. Sez has more than six years of experience leading technology policy initiatives and specializes in AI regulatory compliance, interdisciplinary research, client services, and program management. Currently, Sez serves as an Independent AI Governance & Data Privacy Consultant for multinational organizations pursuing robust data governance solutions internationally.