Six OpenAI veterans including Mira Murati raised $2B at a $12B valuation to build Tinker, an API that democratizes frontier model fine-tuning. The bet: customization matters more than scale. The tension: access is curated, not open.
An AI studio created a photorealistic digital actress and announced agencies were negotiating to sign her. Within 48 hours, SAG-AFTRA condemned it and actors revolted. The speed of rejection reveals where Hollywood draws the line on AI.
Marc Andreessen says Elon Musk's management playbook produces impossible results—but he can count on one hand the founders who could execute even 10% of it. As AI hardware startups raise hundreds of millions, that gap matters more than ever.
An AI studio created a photorealistic digital actress and announced agencies were negotiating to sign her. Within 48 hours, SAG-AFTRA condemned it and actors revolted. The speed of rejection reveals where Hollywood draws the line on AI.
The backlash arrived in under 48 hours
💡 TL;DR - The 30 Seconds Version
🎭 Particle6's AI division Xicoia created Tilly Norwood using 10 AI tools and announced in September 2025 that talent agencies were negotiating to represent her—triggering SAG-AFTRA condemnation within 48 hours.
📊 Norwood's creators claim 90% cost reduction versus traditional production, positioning her as a digital performer who never ages, never tires, and requires no salary, insurance, or union negotiations.
⚖️ SAG-AFTRA refused to use "she" pronouns for Norwood, calling her "it" and "a character generated by computer program," emphasizing the terminology determines whether she's software or talent under union contracts.
🎬 Emily Blunt called Norwood "really, really scary," Melissa Barrera suggested boycotting agencies that sign AI clients, and Mara Wilson framed it as "stolen faces of hundreds of young women."
🎨 Creator Eline Van der Velden defended Norwood as "not a replacement but a creative work—a piece of art," comparing her to puppetry and animation as new creative tools.
🔮 The battle over Norwood centers on definitions that precede regulation: whether synthetic performers are production tools or talent determines copyright, contracts, and labor leverage for the next decade.
Late September 2025: Eline Van der Velden stands at the Zurich Film Festival's industry summit and announces that talent agencies are negotiating to represent Tilly Norwood, a 20-something brunette actress with brown eyes and a British accent. The catch: Norwood is entirely AI-generated—a photorealistic avatar built from algorithms, not auditions. Within two days, SAG-AFTRA issued a formal condemnation. Within a week, actors from Emily Blunt to Simu Liu were posting variations of "absolutely not." The speed of the rejection tells you everything about where Hollywood's tolerance line sits right now.
Van der Velden's studio, Particle6, developed Norwood through its AI division Xicoia as proof-of-concept for "synthetic stars that never tire, never age." The pitch: a digital performer who can work 24/7, costs 90% less than human talent, and handles any role from period drama to monster battles without stunt coordinators or insurance. Norwood debuted in July 2025 in a self-produced comedy sketch called "AI Commissioner," built an Instagram following of 36,000 by September, and generated enough industry curiosity that agencies began circling. Then the immune response kicked in.
Digital humans aren't novel. Japan's Hatsune Miku performed as a hologram in 2008. Instagram influencer Lil Miquela hit 3 million followers as CGI fiction. Star Wars resurrected Peter Cushing and young Carrie Fisher through VFX. The delta here: Particle6 positioned Norwood not as a one-off technical experiment or a celebrity's digital double, but as a working actress available for hire. Van der Velden explicitly compared her ambitions to launching "the next Scarlett Johansson," framing Norwood as talent, not technology.
That framing shift—from tool to replacement—explains why the response was existential rather than curious. SAG-AFTRA's statement refused to use "she" pronouns for Norwood, calling her "it" and "a character generated by a computer program." The union's precision matters: if Norwood is software, she's a production tool; if she's an actress, she competes for roles. The terminology debate isn't semantic—it's definitional, with contract implications. Any signatory studio attempting to cast Norwood would trigger union intervention under recently negotiated AI provisions requiring consent and compensation frameworks.
Norwood's construction required a technical stack Particle6 describes as "10 different AI tools." The pipeline: ChatGPT scripted the debut sketch. A proprietary "DeepFame engine" generated her face—likely trained on datasets including, per SAG-AFTRA, "countless professional performers without permission or compensation." Separate systems handled motion, facial animation, lip-sync. Voice synthesis produced the British accent. Additional tools managed backgrounds, editing, post-production.
The result: photorealistic in stills, uncanny in motion. Critics noted teeth that "blur into a single white block," mouth movements suggesting "her skeleton is about to break free," voice cadences that sound "stilted and robotic." PC Gamer called the sketch "eerie and freakish." The Guardian: "technically astonishing but pointless and relentlessly unfunny." Even in a 2-minute video, the tech shows seams. At feature length, those artifacts compound. But the trajectory is what rattles people—today's glitches are tomorrow's polish.
The economics are blunt. Particle6 claims 90% cost reduction versus traditional production. A digital actor requires no salary, trailer, catering, insurance, or union negotiations. She can shoot in multiple "locations" simultaneously (all AI-generated environments), handle dangerous stunts without risk, and never age or develop scheduling conflicts. From a producer's spreadsheet, the appeal is obvious. From an actor's perspective, it's a direct threat to leverage and livelihood.
From actors: Emily Blunt called it "really, really scary" and implored agencies, "Don't do that. Please stop." Melissa Barrera suggested boycotting any agency signing AI clients. Mara Wilson framed it as identity theft: "They've stolen the faces of hundreds of young women to make this AI actress. You couldn't hire any of them?" The objection isn't Luddism—it's about what constitutes performance. Acting requires lived experience, emotional intelligence, spontaneous interpretation. Norwood processes prompts. The distinction matters.
From unions: SAG-AFTRA's position is structural, not aesthetic. The statement emphasized "creativity is, and should remain, human-centered." Beyond rhetoric, the union's new contract includes "unprecedented provisions for consent and compensation" around AI usage—clauses negotiated explicitly to prevent scenarios like Norwood. The 2023 strikes put AI guardrails in place weeks before Norwood's debut. The timing wasn't subtle.
From creators: Van der Velden frames Norwood as "not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work—a piece of art." The defense: she's a high-tech puppet, a new paintbrush, an expansion of creative possibilities. "Nothing—certainly not an AI character—can take away the craft or joy of human performance," Van der Velden wrote. The comparison to puppetry or animation isn't absurd on its face, except puppets don't audition for roles written for humans, and animation doesn't claim to be indistinguishable from live action.
The technical term for the gap here: "hyper-realistic digital avatar" versus "synthetic performer." Particle6 uses the first; critics hear the second. Intent doesn't determine impact when the end product is designed to substitute for human labor in an already precarious profession.
Norwood emerged from Particle6's existing client work for BBC, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, and gaming studios—AI-driven VFX and content generation at scale. The company wasn't unknown; it was established, with institutional relationships and a track record. Xicoia represents vertical integration: moving from AI tools that assist production to AI entities that perform in it. Van der Velden noted in February 2025, industry figures dismissed the concept; by May, "people were like, 'We need to do something with you guys.'" By September, agency interest.
That acceleration—skepticism to negotiation in seven months—reflects broader anxiety about cost control and labor leverage in post-strike Hollywood. Studios exploring AI options quietly (Van der Velden claims some already generate background actors this way, unreported) suggest the boundary isn't whether to use AI, but how visibly. Norwood's high-profile launch forced a conversation studios would've preferred to delay.
Yves Bergquist, director of AI at USC's Entertainment Technology Center, called the hype "nonsense," noting "zero interest from serious people in developing entirely synthetic characters" for major films. His reasoning: audiences follow stars, not technology. Tom Hanks draws crowds because audiences know Tom Hanks. Norwood has no filmography, no interviews, no Jimmy Fallon appearances—none of the parasocial infrastructure that makes celebrity work. She's a demo reel.
But Bergquist acknowledged "very understandable nervousness" among talent, because the question isn't whether Norwood herself gets cast—it's whether the next iteration, or the one after that, gets good enough that some producer tries it. And whether audiences accept it. And whether acceptance becomes precedent.
• Labor leverage depends on scarcity. If studios believe they can generate adequate performances synthetically, negotiating power shifts permanently. The union response isn't about blocking one AI—it's about preventing normalization before the technology matures.
• Definitions precede regulation. Whether Norwood is "software" or "talent" determines copyright, contracts, liability. SAG-AFTRA's refusal to gender her as "she" is strategic boundary-setting: personhood implies rights; tools don't negotiate.
Q: Has Tilly Norwood actually been cast in any real film or TV projects?
A: No. As of late 2025, Norwood's only work is a 2-minute self-produced comedy sketch called "AI Commissioner" that drew 200,000 views. No agency has publicly signed her, and SAG-AFTRA warned that any signatory studio attempting to cast her would trigger union contract violations requiring immediate negotiation.
Q: What specific AI tools did Particle6 use to create Tilly Norwood?
A: Particle6 used 10 AI tools including ChatGPT for scriptwriting, a proprietary "DeepFame engine" for facial generation, and separate systems for motion, facial animation, lip-sync, and voice synthesis. The company claims her face was trained on datasets including images of professional performers without permission, though exact models aren't disclosed publicly.
Q: How realistic does Tilly Norwood actually look in video?
A: Photorealistic in still images, but uncanny in motion. Critics noted her teeth "blur into a single white block," mouth movements suggesting her "skeleton is about to break free," and voice that sounds "stilted and robotic." PC Gamer called her debut sketch "eerie and freakish" despite technical sophistication, indicating current AI animation still shows visible artifacts.
Q: What did the 2023 SAG-AFTRA contract actually say about AI performers?
A: The contract ratified weeks before Norwood's debut includes "unprecedented provisions for consent and compensation" around AI usage of performers' likenesses. Studios must negotiate with SAG-AFTRA before using synthetic performers or digital doubles, requiring explicit permission frameworks. This makes casting wholly AI-generated actors like Norwood procedurally difficult under current union agreements.
Q: Are there other AI-generated actors besides Tilly Norwood?
A: Not positioned as working actors. Virtual performers exist—Japan's Hatsune Miku (2008) and Instagram's Lil Miquela (3 million followers)—but they're presented as fictional characters, not talent available for hire. Particle6's Xicoia division aims to create "a few dozen" synthetic performers, though Norwood remains their only public showcase after the September 2025 backlash.
Marcus Schuler
Maria Garcia
Maria Garcia
Marc Andreessen says Elon Musk's management playbook produces impossible results—but he can count on one hand the founders who could execute even 10% of it. As AI hardware startups raise hundreds of millions, that gap matters more than ever.
OpenAI's new video app requires consent to use your face but lets studios opt out of copyright protection. Disney already blocked its catalog. Meanwhile, the TikTok clone faces a problem its marketing won't mention: the servers can't handle viral growth.
OpenAI's Sora 2 demands permission for your face but lets Spider-Man appear unless studios opt out. The split policy arrives as year-end conversion deadlines loom and competitors launch rival video feeds—testing fair use through product, not precedent.
Amazon launches new Echo devices with its generative AI assistant baked in—seven months after Alexa+ debuted to cautious early access. The hardware is ready. The question is whether daily use has actually improved enough to justify the rebuild.
Get the 5-minute Silicon Valley AI briefing, every weekday morning — free.
