The creator of the artificial intelligence-generated actress, Tilly Norwood, has released a statement addressing the controversy. Norwood was introduced by AI-focused production company Particle 6 through their newly launched AI talent studio, Xicoia.
Particle 6 created a website for the AI star, which features a demo reel that is 100% AI-generated. Norwood was presented at the Zurich Summit. Eline Van der Velden, creator of the AI actress and CEO of Particle 6, revealed that talent agents in Hollywood are potentially planning to sign Norwood.
As reported by ᴅᴇᴀᴅline, Van der Velden has released a new statement regarding the backlash that has followed Particle 6 since the news about Norwood broke out. The CEO defended Norwood as a new pathway for creativity, saying: “I see AI not as a replacement for people, but as a new tool, a new paintbrush.” Read the statement below:
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. Like many forms of art before her, she sparks conversation, and that in itself shows the power of creativity.
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. I’m an actor myself, and nothing – certainly not an AI character – can take away the craft or joy of human performance.
Creating Tilly has been, for me, an act of imagination and craftsmanship, not unlike drawing a character, writing a role, or shaping a performance. It takes time, skill, and iteration to bring such a character to life. She represents experimentation, not subsтιтution. Much of my work has always been about holding up a mirror to society through satire, and this is no different.
AI characters should be judged as part of their own genre, on their own merits… Each form of art has its place, and each can be valued for what it uniquely brings.
I hope we can welcome AI as part of the wider artistic family; one more way to express ourselves, alongside theatre, film, painting, music, and countless others. When we celebrate all forms of creativity, we open doors to new voices, new stories, and new ways of connecting with each other.
What Eline Van der Velden’s Statement Means For Hollywood
The public’s reaction was fast and strong. High-profile actors such as Melissa Barrera and Mara Wilson publicly criticized the concept, while many others questioned whether Norwood’s composite likeness relied on images of real people without meaningful consent or compensation. This controversy lands in an already heated debate revolving around AI in Hollywood.
The 2023 writers’ and actors’ strike centered on concerns that AI could be used to reduce wages, reuse performers’ likenesses without consent, or replace background actors with scanned digital ᴀssets. Because of this, Norwood’s existence sparks an important conversation.
Van der Velden’s argument that AI is “another paintbrush” holds some truth, as AI can perhaps aid with new creative forms, yet wholesale industry adoption without transparency and safeguards in place for human talent is risky.
Norwood’s moment seems to be a test case. The way agencies, studios, and unions respond will determine whether AI performers remain experimental or become normalized in mainstream production. Unions like SAG-AFTRA have already pushed for protections around digital likenesses, and Norwood’s controversy could accelerate the use of formal protections for human performers.
Our Take On The Defense Of Tilly Norwood
Using artificial intelligence to de-age actors, like what Sylvester Stallone was considering for a potential Rambo prequel, or to aid in other tweaks of a similar sort, could be considered an acceptable use of AI. However, using it to alter their performance, like Adrien Brody’s accent in The Brutalist, or to replace real-life performers, is understandably more worrying among artists and the public alike.
Creators experimenting with AI performers should do so with clear rules. If AI “actors” are to appear, there should be explicit consent for any human-sourced ᴀssets, visible disclosure of when the AI performer is present, and agreements that ensure human workers aren’t displaced. Ideally, however, AI should not be used to generate future performances in film or television.
