There is a certain intellectual dishonesty in branding an artificial intelligence (AI) avatar as the “girl next door”. More so, when another AI avatar shows appreciation for it because “she’ll do anything I say”. And yet, the AI production house Particle6, has claimed that several talent agents have expressed interest in signing its AI-generated “actor” Tilly Norwood.Calling AI avatars actors is an act of quiet deceit — a linguistic dodge designed to legitimise what is essentially an act of theft as innovation. These digital bodies are not born of imagination or creativity, but built on the extracted labour of real performers whose expressions, voices and gestures have been mined to animate machines – without compensation.It is not artistry but appropriation, a calculated rewriting of creative credit that recasts exploitation as evolution, and in doing so, trades the human pulse of storytelling for a programmable illusion of presence. Tilly Norwood isn’t a piece of “art” like its creators are calling it, but a mere digital puppet.Can’t believe it … my first ever role is live!I star in AI commissioner, a new comedy sketch that playfully explores the future of TV development produced by the brilliant team at @Particle6PI am so excited for what’s coming next ! #Tillynorwood #Aiart #Aiactress pic.twitter.com/UowMYwuRVc— Tilly Norwood (@TillyNorwood) September 28, 2025And if the short comedy sketch ‘AI Commissioner’ which debuted the AI persona is anything to go by, the confidence that Norwood may after all have a career in acting seems unwarranted. It is, quite simply, subpar.The Tilly Norwood hypeEline Van der Velden, CEO of Particle6 has said that she sees Norwood as the next Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman, and is among the slew of AI personas the AI studio is developing. But Hollywood is not rolling out the red carpet.Norwood’s appearance has drawn sharp criticism from several in the film business. The labour union Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), in a statement said that creativity is, and should remain, human-centered. “The union 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 programme 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, jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry,” the union added.On the other side, the AI studio behind Norwood is trying hard to normalise Norwood, as is evident from the Instagram account that has been created for the AI avatar. Aside from posting pictures like a typical influencer, the bio accompanying the profile reads: “Actress (aspiring); London (mostly in cafes…). To be sure, Norwood is a piece of code written on top of ingested data. It is not loitering around London’s cafes.Story continues below this adThe use of AI in cinema is not new. It is used in a host of sci-fi and animated films where computer generated graphics play a key role. But, with avatars – who are amenable, and can be trained/instructed to do things on the basis of a prompt – the concerns go far beyond their immediate impact on the creative world.There is a moment in the short comedy sketch which features Norwood, where an AI persona of a man says it likes Norwood because ““she’ll do anything I say”. This is deeply problematic on several levels, as it signals that the studio is planting the seed in the audience’s mind that their AI avatars could be used for things beyond ‘acting’.Besides, A-list celebrities are unlikely to be impacted by such AI avatars cropping up, but where there is potential for actual job losses is among those who are less influential – background actors, voice artists, lighting people, and composers among others.AI-dommerism and the illusion of inevitabilityThen there is the tendency of AI creators to tell the world that their creation is going to either change the world for good, or have the capacity to destroy it. The argument is framed from a point of view that the way AI will grow is almost inevitable. As if it is lying around in nature to evolve into something that is completely devoid of any human control.Story continues below this adExcept, that isn’t the case. Behind every piece of AI, there are humans making decisions by the lines of code they have written for it. But, by projecting AI as a form of grandiose being, with the ability to be a gentle giant or a destroyer of worlds, AI creators are trying to push the debate into the absolute absurd, as a tactic to normalise the everyday embedding of AI in our lives.It is often used as a way to desensitise us from the slow and small ways in which those with financial motives in AI are trying to plug their tools in our lives. To normalise AI around us. The temptation must be resisted.