She also suggested that companies that outwardly claim not to be using any form of AI are secretly embracing it under the table, per Deadline.
What’s the backlash about?
Simply put, no one understands the point of Tilly, because there doesn’t seem to be one. If Particle 6 had created, say, an AI child (creepy, I know, but hear me out) who didn’t need to work the legally mandated shorter production hours, or an AI elderly person who could commit to 20 seasons of a show without running the risk of, well, passing away, there might be some explanation for why a production would want to use them (though, TBH, there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered about this practice).
But Tilly looks kind of like Mila Kunis. Why not just use Mila Kunis? Why take work away from people who look like Mila Kunis?
Immediately, actors were mad.
“Hope all actors repped by the agent that does this, drop their a$$. How gross, read the room,” wrote Melissa Barrera on Instagram, per Variety. “And what about the hundreds of living young women whose faces were composited together to make her? You couldn’t hire any of them?” added Mara Wilson.
Reacting to an image of Tilly on a podcast with Variety, Emily Blunt said, “That is really, really scary. Come on, agencies, don’t do that. Please stop. Please stop taking away our human connection.”
In a statement, SAG-AFTRA said bluntly, “‘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. 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.”
