Are moviegoers ever going to accept films created using AI? And just as importantly, will the creatives who work in the industry be cool with letting the tech play a heavy role in the filmmaking process?The bitter response to a new “AI actress” suggests that the answer to both questions, at least for now, is a ringing “no.”On Sunday, the creator of the digital acting persona named “Tilly Norwood” defended her brainchild after pretty much everyone said they hated it — including, most notably, actors.“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,” Eline Van der Velden, founder of the AI firm Particle 6 Productions, said in a statement posted to Instagram. “Like many forms of art before her, she sparks conversation, and that in itself shows the power of creativity.”Norwood’s turn in the crosshairs comes as major film studios have eagerly rushed to sign deals with AI firms. The past year alone has seen generative AI effects used in a number of high profile films, ranging from “Alien: Romulus” to “The Brutalist.”The AI character sparked fierce backlash last week when Van Der Velden claimed that her recently formed AI “talent studio” Xicoia was in talks with agents who were interested in signing it. “We’re going to be announcing which agency is going to be representing her in the next few months,” she teased, per Deadline.An AI puppet being considered an “actress” is controversial in itself. But talking up the AI character as an actual performer that’s getting signed seemed to feel like too tangible a threat to real actors, who fought for landmark AI protections in the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike that shut down Hollywood for nearly half a year. “Not an actress actually,” wrote young TV star Nicholas Alexander Chavez in response to the news. “Nice try.”“And what about the hundreds of living young women whose faces were composited together to make her?” asked actress Mara Wilson, best known for her titular role in the 1996 film “Matilda.” “You couldn’t hire any of them?”Veteran character actor Ralph Ineson summed up the general feeling in a viral tweet.“F*ck off,” he wrote.Herself a comedian and actress, Van der Velden tried to address the actors’ backlash by claiming Norwood isn’t here for their jobs.“I see AI not as a replacement for people, but as a new tool, a new paintbrush,” she wrote in the statement.Van der Velden added that AI characters “should be judged as part of their own genre,” instead of being compared to human actors. “She represents experimentation, not substitution.”This did little to strengthen her case.“To say that this is not an attempt to replace human beings is stupid and a crock of sh*t,” wrote actor Abraham Lim, replying to Van der Velden’s statement. “The existence of ‘Tilly,’ its possibly signing with an agency, its use in any production — those acts, in and of themselves, replace other actors and actresses.”It’s a fair point. If Van der Velden’s creation is neither replacing humans nor should be judged by the same standards as them, why is it being hyped up in overtly anthropomorphic terms? She’s calling Norwood an “AI actress,” not a digital character. It’s represented by an “AI talent studio,” not a tech firm. Norwood has “her” own Instagram page where she masquerades as a typical influencer or celebrity.Van Der Velden says her creation “sparks conversation,” but this isn’t an indicator of creativity or artistic merit. In this case, that conversation was a near- universal outpouring of anger. That doesn’t tell us anything unique or insightful. It just means that no one liked it. Also, there are ways of pulling off a stunt like this that don’t involve actually getting an AI “signed” by agents or studios, directly imperiling the livelihood of flesh and blood talent.And if Norwood represents “experimentation,” then it’s certainly not the artistic kind. Everyone knows that AI can dream up eerie imitations of humans. Aping the human form, and the art we create, is its whole point. Putting an “AI actress” out there — which is blandly photorealistic and safely adheres to conventional beauty standards — doesn’t even feel experimental in any meaningful way. It simply reinforces the tech’s ability to generate boring simulacrum, and in so doing, make everyone whose creative output it averaged out into an algorithm-driven slush feel very uncomfortable about their future.More on AI: Lionsgate’s Attempt to Create Movies Using AI Has Crumbled Into DisasterThe post Creator of “AI Actress” Responds to Near-Universal Backlash appeared first on Futurism.