The opinions expressed in this article are the writer’s own and do not reflect the views of The University of Scranton.
Last week, it was announced that actress Tilly Norwood was currently under a bidding war to be signed by various Hollywood agencies. The problem? Norwood is not an actual actress, nor an actual person, but an AI “actress” created by Dutch comedian and technologist, Eline Van der Velden, who developed the program with production company, Particle6, through its new AI talent studio offshoot called Xicoia. Moreover, Fortune reported, “At the Zurich Summit this past weekend, Van der Velden said discussions with agencies have progressed significantly since Norwood made her debut in a comedy sketch in July, adding an announcement about representation should arrive ‘in the coming months.’” The news caused a huge backlash, not only in Hollywood, but around the world. Now, more than ever, there’s a fear that AI and machines will replace human jobs, but I had never, to be honest, entertained the idea that AI would ever replace a human actor (Ford).
As someone who has spent innumerable hours in a theater, studying theater, and learning how to act, I can assure anyone that it takes a degree of time and dedication to be able to perform. Perhaps I am biased, as I study Theater and English here at The University of Scranton, and as such, acting matters to my life. However, I feel that the idea of AI actors extends beyond a matter of those who value theater and film to a deeper problem in our culture: authenticity in the humanities.
If Van der Velden’s claims are true, and her cheap imitation of real art masquerading as a woman is being hotly recruited by talent agencies, it is evident Hollywood does not care about authenticity, nor a major component of art: humanity. As discussed in my previous article (https://www.hercampus.com/school/scranton/why-chatgpt-is-hurting-us/), AI cannot replace art. It can only create a poor imitation by stealing illegally fed materials into the machine. As such, let’s call “Tilly” what she is: a computer being generated to look like a person replacing a human actor. For the purpose of argument, “Tilly” will be henceforth called Poorly Coded Pretend Actress. Fr the purpose of this article, I have a feeling her coded sadness will pass. More importantly though, Poorly Coded Pretend Actress demonstrates the erosion of authenticity and devaluation of the arts in our own society. As when we replace human emotions with computer generated ones, we only cheapen our own art.
Concerningly, Poorly Coded Pretend Actress, is only the start. The creation of an AI talent studio under Xicoia is an indication that “Tilly Norwood,” may be the first of many. After all, wouldn’t it be easier if “Tilly” has AI actors opposite it? This replacement of human actors is not only concerning the actors of Hollywood, it’s a slap in the face to the acting and writer’s union after their strike in 2023, the longest in the union’s history, which directly fought against the inclusion of AI in the film and television industry. SAG-AFTRA has issued a statement condemning “Tilly,” saying “creativity is, and should remain, human-centered” and “is opposed to the replacement of human performers by synthetics…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.” I believe their note that it was trained on others raises an important, legal issue, whose acting work and likeness was stolen in order to create the coding that the Poorly Coded Pretend Actress uses to create the “emotion” it copies? SAG-AFTRA believes that even if it has this content though, “It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion and, from what we’ve seen, audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience. It doesn’t solve any ‘problem’ — it creates the problem of using stolen performances to put actors out of work, jeopardizing performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry.” The guild added, “Signatory producers should be aware that they may not use synthetic performers without complying with our contractual obligations, which require notice and bargaining whenever a synthetic performer is going to be used” (Sharf).
In essence, the union will not allow for AI on union productions, but the question becomes, how long will they be able to hold out? Other creative industries have already folded, Amazon is currently doing little to limit AI generated books, which are not only poorly written, but steal money from real offers (Sommer). It also doesn’t help that two “authors,” K.C. Crowne and Lena McDonald who were caught with ChatGPT prompts in their book, barely received more than a slap on the wrist, and outrage from the corner of the internet, though given their genre of “romantacy,” they are hardly the next Joyce or Williams (Upton-Clark). What truly bothers me is now that the publishing industry has fallen and now I fear film and theater will be next. From there? AI paintings, AI actors, AI books. The problem is that, you can tell the inauthenticity in it from a mile away. While AI can imitate art by looking at patterns, it can never truly make anything that is not stolen from other, real people’s art, a poor imitation of what we are actually capable of creating. This difference is palatable, even when attempted to be disguised, as it lacks any real depth. It’s hollow, soulless mimicry, just as this Poorly Coded Pretend Actress can only ever really amount to.
However, SAG-AFTRA president Sean Astin remains resilient as to the union’s ability to prevent such a takeover of the film and television industry in his comments to Variety, saying “I appreciate that this story has captured the imagination of people, but it’s not the first shoe to drop. We had a 118-day strike, fighting very hard to put AI provisions and protections in place…As technology continues to advance at light speed, we’re going to meet the challenge.” Astin added that the union would also address the issue with the Association of Talent Agents, stating “Our agreement with the ATA is important, and we look forward to a healthy, constructive conversation with agencies to make sure that we continue to help each other. We performers rely on our agent’s judgment and their good work and their sincerity, and they rely on our talent and our marketability. The real issue at play is how our work is exhibited and what kinds of permissions and compensations we get for its use” (Smith).
Actors are also publicly voicing their concerns about using AI personalities in projects. During a recent appearance on Variety’s “Awards Circuit Podcast,” Emily Blunt commented, “Are you serious? That’s an AI? Good Lord, we’re screwed,” she said. “That is really, really scary. Come on, agencies, don’t do that. Please stop. Please stop taking away our human connection.” Melissa Barrera of Scream fame, wrote a particularly derisive comment on her Instagram, “Hope all actors repped by the agent that does this, drop their a$$,” It’s a piece of advice I truly hope actors in Hollywood follow, however, I understand why young actors may find themselves unable to do so (Simpson).
In response to this backlash, Van der Velden, issued a detailed statement on Instagram, “To those who have expressed anger over the creation of my AI character, Tilly Norwood, she is not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work a piece of art,” she wrote. “Like many forms of art before her, she sparks conversation, and that in itself shows the power of creativity.” Van der Velden went on to say AI should not be a replacement for people, and that nothing “can take away the craft or joy of human performance,” but creating Tilly has been “an act of imagination” and “represents experimentation, not substitution.“
This is blatantly false, and frankly, as Van Der Velden is a “comedian” one would believe that she would understand the sanctity of real and human art. Yet it seems, the only thing laughable about Van Der Velden’s statement is this obvious oversight, as it is directly intended to replace human beings. After all, why create a studio intended to create AI actors, unless for profit and expansion? Moreover, while she is arguing that it will be more efficient, this is yet another example of how AI is being used to exercise corporate greed, as I’m sure AI actors are cheaper than real ones, even if their acting is equally as cheap. Efficiency is important, but failure is more human and makes us create better art, particularly on film and on stage. Sure, a human actor might not act perfectly one-hundred percent of the time, but they bring their humanity, perhaps adding things to the performance from learning more about their character organically.
And this is precisely where the danger lies, in mistaking replication for creation. The more we allow AI to replace the imperfections of human artistry, the more we lose the truth those imperfections reveal. This tension between efficiency and authenticity reveals a deeper issue: when we prioritize convenience over creativity, we risk stripping art of the very thing that makes it human, us. When machines begin to imitate emotion, we begin to lose the essence of what art is meant to capture: humanity itself. Humanity in the arts is a necessary element of the truth, and I promise you can always tell who is using AI, because it will always feel lacking, if not in “humanity,” certainly in its form. I sit in my college presentations and watch people read off of slides that are clearly Overviews made by ChatGPT. The difference is real, the lack of depth, the absence of soul, and often blatant mistakes are evident to those who know to look. If we do not believe that an Ai generated actress would not have similar limitations we are only fooling ourselves. This push for synthetic art will only lead to further defunding of the arts. If machines can make soulless copies, why teach people to read, paint, or act? This will lead to even further defunding of the arts after all, if machines can create insufficient copies, why would we teach people to read? Why would we teach people to draw? Why would we teach people to act? As a young person who would like to work in theater education as an adult, or, perhaps in my dreams work as an actor, AI intruding blatantly into theater scares me. My classmate recently mentioned in a discussion about AI, “I want AI to do my dishes so that I can do art, not AI to do art,” a memo silicon valley certainly missed, if AI is supposed to make our lives easier that is not the case.
But this problem runs deeper, as it’s gendered. According to an online article by Claire Law for IMPACT, this problem especially impacts women, as Poorly Coded AI Actress embodies and enables the sexism in Hollywood and theater women in the field have been fighting for generations. Law writes, “Are we surprised that she’s already in talks with major talent agencies? She’s Hollywood’s dream actress; ageless…no agency.”Law continues, noting Van der Velden’s comments to Deadline, wherein she described her ambition to make “Tilly” “the next Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman.” Law responds, “This interest in an AI actor should surprise no one. Of course the studio modeled it after a woman. It’s the only way it could possibly work. Hollywood—and society at large—imposes unrelenting, impossible stances on women, especially those in the spotlight: to be forever young, flawless, sculpted by Eurocentric ideals, silent in the face of inequality, and passive in the face of objectification… To empty perfection without protest. Better yet, to literally be an object… That’s what Norwood is: a creation born from patriarchal fantasy. Hollywood’s ‘ideal’ woman,” precisely because she isn’t a woman at all. No autonomy. No say. No voice. Just a curated face.”
And she’s right. Tilly Norwood represents not the future of acting, but the death of it. When we start replacing real women with fake ones, we aren’t just erasing opportunity, we’re resurrecting centuries of sexism under a technological disguise. We don’t even know how “she” has been trained. Was the AI modeled on the performances of real actresses who fought to portray complex, authentic women? Or was it fed the same male-written scripts and visual data that have long reduced women to sex symbols, ditzes, and ornaments? Female actors, directors, and writers have spent decades demanding space to tell stories that reflect real women, flawed, human, and alive. An AI creation like Tilly Norwood threatens to undo that progress, reducing women once again to caricatures built for consumption rather than expression.
The biggest slap in the face to female actors is that, frankly, Poorly Coded AI Actress isn’t even very good at acting. As such, I’d like to critique the ways that this so-called it fails to act like a human being, something that should be apparent even to those who know little about acting or performance technique. However, I do believe that the theater classes I have taken here at The University of Scranton allow me the authority to comment further on authenticity in acting. So, I ask you to consider me an imperfect source on what genuine performance requires, in order to critique the ways an AI-generated actress could never achieve it.
To begin, acting is truthful. These machines cannot feel, and hence there is no truth, no emotion, no imagination, and no lived experience to draw upon. My “party trick” in acting is that I can cry on cue. It’s not easy, and certainly requires drinking a lot of water before the show and intense emotion, but I am often able to draw upon my character’s circumstances to make myself truly feel that emotion and when I do, it is real, or at least translates as real to the stage. Most recently, I had the pleasure of playing Kate in the University of Scranton Players’ production of Dancing At Lughnasa. While I, as a college student, may not be a forty-something-year-old schoolteacher who is a righteous bitch who lashes out at others, I can relate to the frustrations and obligations of being an eldest daughter, running a household, and managing expectations. In that way, I merge my own lived experience with that of the character and embody her truth.
“Tilly” cannot do that. It can not connect to a human being because it is not a human being, not use its non-existent memories to create true emotion, because it can not feel such emotion. At best, she mimics emotion; at worst, she renders it meaningless. Acting is not replication, it is real, and no algorithm can replicate humanity’s depth or vulnerability.
However, to ground my own understanding of acting in theatrical theory, I will turn to The Method as established by Konstantine Stanislavski and those who follow his tradition of realism. Stanislavski was a Russian actor, who felt the acting style of the time was unrealistic and presentational, as it used dramatic acting and indicative gestures to tell a story. Stanislavski realized this and strove to create a more realistic style of acting using psychodrama and realism. While often confused for “method acting,” it is actually a perversion of Stanislavski’s ideas, he never intended for actors to “become” their characters in real life but rather to think and reason as the character does within the context of the play. In 1898, he founded the Moscow Art Theatre, where he developed the Stanislavski method, which is still used in modern acting today. His method involved less external expression and more internal reflection, instructing the actor to use psychoanalysis and psychodrama to achieve reasoning by thinking as the character does. This internal exploration of motivation and behavior allows actors to portray genuine emotional responses, making the performance more authentic, instead of the fake, overdramatic acting of the past. As a result, his book An Actor Prepares, which lays out these principles, is the foundational text for training actors in Russia and the United States. His method was translated by American theater artists in the early 20th century, work recognizable in many actors of the golden age of Hollywood like Marlon Brandon, Elia Kazan, and Marilon Moroe. To explain his technique, and why it matters in the case of “Tilly Notwood”, I must break down the five main pillars of his technique: The Magic If, Objective and Super-Objective, Emotional Memory, Concentration, and Subtext.
On the whole ,it seems important that “Tilly” is incapable of this kind of realism described. AI cannot “think” it only processes code. While some neuroscientists may draw analogies between algorithms and the human brain, coding is not consciousness. An AI model cannot explore internal ideas and motivates, and as such can not use psychoanalysis to “think” as an actor ought, nor internally explore motivation or behavior, so even from the beginning, it seems “Tilly” is a doomed endeavor.
The first of these main pillars of Stanislavski’s method is the Magic If. The actor uses the Magic If to use their given circumstances to activate their imagination and connect intimately to the material. This includes time period, location, relationships, and external factors influencing the character’s behavior. Understanding these circumstances ensures the actor remains true to the character’s world (Barton 27). In essence, it unlocks the imagination by focusing on the given circumstances in order to allow actors an intimate connection to the material and their character’s motivations. This then allows the actor to understand the circumstances of the world of the play. Tilly cannot do this, as AI does not imagine, it generates based on another person’s work at a person’s prompting. It cannot wonder, hypothesize, or feel curiosity about “what if.” It does not experience the uncertainty that drives creativity. While a human actor uses the Magic If to inhabit a world, “Tilly” merely references data. She cannot contextualize love, fear, or desperation because she has never lived them, and can not emphasize with such emotion.
The second part of Stanislavski’s method is the Objective and Super-Objective. Every character has an immediate goal, the Objective, driving their actions in a scene, and a broader, overarching goal, the Super-Objective, throughout the story. This approach emphasizes motivation and the emotional throughline of the character’s journey, and helps an actor better understand their motivation in each individual scene, and throughout the entire place. AI, however, cannot have an objective. It has no will, no inner drive, no understanding of purpose. Even if it is programmed to “pretend” to pursue a goal, it does so without awareness or emotion. A character’s objective stems from their humanity, their fears, needs, and contradictions. Tilly cannot feel longing, regret, or triumph. Its “motivation” is merely the echo of someone else’s, and moreover such software typically lacks the ability to see detailed ideas like multiple motivations for one’s actions.
The next element, Emotional Memory, is achieved by actors by drawing upon their personal experiences to enhance performance authenticity, channeling emotions effectively without losing themselves in them. This also leads to a greater empathy for the character, something experienced directly by the actor and indirectly by the audience. As previously expressed, “Tilly” has no emotional memory. She cannot recall heartbreak, loss, or laughter. She does not possess a childhood, relationships, or moments of vulnerability to call upon. Without empathy, there is no humanity, and without humanity, there can be no acting. What she produces are emotional facsimiles, or lines delivered without lived truth, a hollow imitation of feeling rather than the thing itself, that only creates “false” acting.
In the next pillar, Concentration, actors must master concentration and relaxation to stay engaged and deliver natural, focused performances. This involves intense focus on the scene and surroundings, with keen observation of human behavior and interactions. “Tilly” cannot observe or respond in real time. She performs based on data, not intuition. Its“reactions” are preprogrammed, not inspired, and will only lead to a lack of creative choices. Consider one of the most iconic examples of improv in film: in Star Wars: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, when Leia says “I love you” to Han Solo, Harrison Ford was scripted to reply “I love you too,” but he instead said “I know.” This small, improvisational change transformed the scene into one of the most memorable moments in cinematic history, perfectly capturing Han’s personality and the tension in their relationship. The improvisational line was kept in the final cut, because of how authentically Ford reacted, and the way the other actors responded to his spontaneous change. No AI, including “Tilly” could make such a spontaneous, contextually appropriate choice; she can only recite preprogrammed lines. A human touch adds to acting, not detracts.
Stanislavski’s final element is Subtext, through which actors discover the often implicit meaning of the play, and express it through their performance. He emphasized that the true meaning and emotional depth of a play are often implied rather than explicit in the text (Stanislavski 52). This is particularly important because characters don’t always mean what they say, or use words aimed at innuendo or other hidden meaning, and as such, actors must show the correct emotion and not simply what is the surface level of the text. AI cannot interpret subtext, as it processes surface-level language but cannot intuit irony, hesitation, or pain hidden between the lines. They will never really be able to understand the irony, wit, or humor as the AI lacks a brain with which to truly interpret any sort of subtext.
Taken together Stanislaski’s five pillars of acting allow us to see that the art of acting is inseparable from human experience. Through the five pillars of Stanislavski’s method, Magic If, Objective and Super-Objective, Emotional Memory, Concentration, and Subtext, actors bring truth, empathy, and imagination to life in ways that no AI can replicate. “Tilly” may mimic the appearance of performance, but she cannot feel, understand, or respond to the world as human actors can, and therefore will always be nothing more than a pitiful imitation, never able to act truthfully because it can never feel truthfully. Stanislaski, I’m sure, is rolling in his grave.
If we allow machines to create our art, we are losing our own humanity. If we allow machines to do art, we are losing our own humanity. If you will indulge me one last argument, we , I believe, are made to create. Regardless of your theological beliefs there are thousands of years of theological tradition that we are “made in the image of God.” Whatever God means to you, I think the likeness touched on in most religions is that we like God or gods have the power to create. We can do this, unlike all other creatures on earth, and I believe that matters. What we have the power to artistically create, matters.
As audiences, we have the power to set boundaries for what is acceptable in art. If a film or project features AI actors like Tilly Norwood, do not support it, refuse to watch it, do not give the studio it your box-office revenue, and send a clear message that replacing human creativity with algorithms is unacceptable. Just as audiences have held creators accountable in the past, we can protect the integrity of the arts by choosing to human performances.
It and buy It I mean this computer program did not feel sadness cannot truly create. It is only a coded tear, a coded anger. It can never truly feel, and therefore it cannot, and never will be able to act. As such, the development of “Tilly Norwood” represents far more than a technological novelty, it is a direct challenge to the authenticity and humanity of the arts. Through the lens of Stanislavski’s method, it becomes clear that no algorithm can replicate the imagination, emotional depth, or lived experience that human actors bring to their craft. AI may mimic the surface of performance, but it cannot feel, empathize, or respond in real time; it can only produce a hollow imitation. Beyond the artistic implications, the creation of AI actors threatens the livelihoods of real performers, undermines decades of progress toward gender equality in Hollywood, and risks normalizing a culture in which efficiency is valued over truth, creativity, and human connection. Art is not merely about output; it is about expression, experience, and the shared humanity between performer and audience. To allow machines to replace this process is to devalue the very essence of what makes us human. As audiences, and artists, we have a responsibility to protect this authenticity. We must resist the allure of convenience over creativity, advocate for human-centered art, and ensure that platforms, studios, and talent agencies do not prioritize soulless replication over genuine performance. In doing so, we preserve not only the integrity of theater and film but the human spirit that gives art its power.
WORK CITED
Barton, Robert. Acting: Onstage and Off. 5th ed., Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2009.
Davis, Clayton. “Emily Blunt Reacts to AI Actress Tilly Norwood Signing News.” Variety, 29 Sept. 2025, variety.com/2025/film/news/emily-blunt-ai-actress-tilly-norwood-reaction-1236534547/.
Ford, Lily. “SAG-AFTRA Slams AI “Actor” Tilly Norwood: “It Has No Life Experience.”” The Hollywood Reporter, 30 Sept. 2025, www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/sag-aftra-slams-ai-actress-tilly-norwood-xicoia-union-1236388942/.
Konstantin Stanislavski. An Actor Prepares. 1936. Translated by Elizabeth Hapgood, Read Books Ltd, 1936, www.craftfilmschool.com/userfiles/files/An%20Actor%20Prepares.pdf.
Law, Claire . ““AI Actor” Tilly Norwood Is Drawling Major Backlash.” Instagram, IMPACT , 6 Oct. 2025, www.instagram.com/p/DPd784RjvDg/?igsh=ajd6bXNxbTBnMmpp. Accessed 9 Oct. 2025.
Sharf, Zack. “SAG-AFTRA Condemns Tilly Norwood: AI Actress Is Not an Actor.” Variety, 30 Sept. 2025, variety.com/2025/film/news/sag-aftra-tilly-norwood-ai-actress-1236534779/.
Simpson, Kaitlin. “Who Is Tilly Norwood? Meet the Controversial AI Actress That Has Celebrities and SAG-AFTRA Outraged.” Us Weekly, Yahoo Entertainment, 2 Oct. 2025, www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/inside-controversy-surrounding-ai-actress-223034137.html. Accessed 16 Oct. 2025.
Smith, Dave. “Hollywood Erupts as Talent Agents Circle “AI Actor” Tilly Norwood: “Not Surprised the First Major AI Actor Is a Young Woman They Can Fully Control.”” Fortune, Oct. 2025, fortune.com/2025/10/01/tilly-norwood-ai-actress-backlash-hollywood-eline-van-der-velden-sag-aftra/. Accessed 16 Oct. 2025.
Sommer, Joanna. “AI-Generated Books on Amazon Are Hurting Authors and the Publishing Industry.” InsideHook, 6 Aug. 2025, www.insidehook.com/books/ai-generated-books-amazon-authors-publishing-industry. Accessed 16 Oct. 2025.
Upton-Clark, Eve. “Fantasy and Romance Writers Address AI Controversies after Readers Discover Prompts in Published Books.” Fast Company, 28 May 2025, www.fastcompany.com/91341390/ai-prompts-left-in-published-books-authors-respond-to-controversy.