Will AI Actors Replace Humans in Hollywood?
Film lovers enjoy romanticising those extraordinary, generational acting talents, but what if Hollywood no longer needed to wait decades for the emergence of a fresh superstar?
This is the discussion that has been taking place in executive suites across Hollywood recently, following the debut of Tilly Norwood, an artificially-generated performer developed by Xicoia, a London-headquartered talent agency that creates what it terms "digital artists".
Those behind Norwood have characterised her as the successor to Scarlett Johansson when she made her first appearance at the Zurich Film Festival, where footage of her performances was presented.
Following this, news emerged that multiple talent agencies have entered negotiations with Xicoia regarding representation of Norwood.
Almost instantly, numerous performers and professional guilds voiced their opposition to the start-up's initiative, arguing that artificially generated performers pose a fundamental danger to human talent and cinema itself.
Regardless of whether Xicoia's presentation was merely strategic publicity or a sincere effort to revolutionise the sector, film companies will be contemplating the implications this technology holds for their output in the years ahead.
The concerns of the unions
SAG-AFTRA, the American performers' guild, issued a declaration condemning Norwood's development immediately following the Zurich presentation, outlining the legal and moral considerations involved.
"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," the union stated.
The union added that the technology "doesn't solve any 'problem' – it creates the problem of using stolen performances to put actors out of work, jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry".
This declaration addresses one of the fundamental anxieties in the world of entertainment and the creative industries.
The information used to train AI systems is sourced from the output of genuine artists, typically without their knowledge or any financial recompense.
Hollywood's enraged A-listers
More recently, actor Emily Blunt said that she had been alarmed by the development.
"Good Lord, we're screwed," she said on the Variety podcast. "That is really, really scary. Come on, agencies, don't do that. Please stop. Please stop taking away our human connection."
Other actors were more direct in their criticism.
Actor Melissa Barrera wrote on Instagram: "Hope all actors repped by the agent that does this, drop their a**."
Actor Mara Wilson questioned the logic of creating an AI composite when real actors already exist. "And what about the hundreds of living young women whose faces were composited together to make her? You couldn't hire any of them?," she asked.
Elsewhere, Natasha Lyonne, who is working on a feature film using what she describes as "ethical" AI, also condemned the development.
"Any talent agency that engages in this should be boycotted by all guilds," she argued. "Deeply misguided and totally disturbed. Not the way. Not the vibe. Not the use."
Can AI simply be a "new paintbrush" for filmmakers?
Eline Van Der Velden is the CEO of Particle6, the company which produced Norwood's debut appearance in the short film AI Commissioner.
She has come out in defence of her company's new technology, emphasising that it should be seen as a creative tool, rather than a threat.
"I see AI not as a replacement for people, but as a new tool – a new paintbrush. Just as animation, puppetry, or CGI opened fresh possibilities without taking away from live acting, AI offers another way to imagine and build stories," she explains.
She described creating Norwood as "an act of imagination and craftsmanship, not unlike drawing a character, writing a role or shaping a performance".
Eline says that although Tilly Norwood and her short film debut are "100% AI-generated", bringing such a character to life "takes time, skill and iteration".
A wide-angle shot
In spite of the promotional buzz around Norwood, her initial performance has not yet shown any sort of commercial success.
AI Commissioner, which came out two months ago, has garnered over 700,000 views on YouTube, with many of those views likely stemming from the hostility that has greeted Norwood's development.
The technical quality of the AI itself also exhibits some fairly evident shortcomings, with audiences observing that the visuals are unclear and the line delivery is distinctly stilted.
Nevertheless, Hollywood is currently facing unprecedented financial pressures. Cinema attendance is declining and production expenses continue to climb annually.
Detractors fear that studios might ultimately embrace AI out of economic necessity. And if profit is the only consideration then the rationale becomes clear.
Artificially generated performers require no wages, they don't require residual payments, they have no union membership, they don't even require meal services.
AI performers don't grow older, they function continuously without rest, they impose no artistic requirements and it would be remarkable if they managed to generate any public relations scandals.
A future dominated by AI-driven films in cinemas might be distant, but it is understandable why performers feel apprehensive, even at this nascent stage.