AI actor Tilly Norwood releases a musical video arguing that artificial intelligence can expand creativity in film
Updated
March 13, 2026 2:18 PM
AI Actor Tilly Norwood. PHOTO: INSTAGRAM@TILLYNORWOOD
As Hollywood prepares for this weekend’s Oscars, a different kind of performer is stepping into the spotlight — one that doesn’t physically exist.
Tilly Norwood, described as the world’s first AI actor, has released her debut musical comedy video, Take the Lead. The project arrives at a moment when artificial intelligence has become one of the most contentious topics in the film industry.
The message of the song is simple. AI should not be seen as a threat to actors. Instead, it can become another creative tool. The release also offers a first look at what Norwood’s creators call the “Tillyverse”. It is envisioned as a cloud-based entertainment world where AI characters can live, interact and perform.
Behind the character is actor and producer Eline van der Velden. She is the CEO of production company Particle6 and AI talent studio Xicoia. Van der Velden created Tilly as a way to experiment with how artificial intelligence could be used in storytelling.
The timing is not accidental. The entertainment industry has spent the past few years debating the role AI should play in filmmaking and acting. Questions about digital replicas, automated performances and creative ownership continue to divide artists and studios.
Norwood’s musical video enters that debate with a different tone. Instead of warning about AI replacing actors, the project suggests that the technology could expand what performers are able to do.
The video itself also serves as a technical experiment. The song Take the Lead was generated using the AI music platform Suno. The video was then produced using a combination of widely available AI tools and Particle6’s own creative process.
One of the newer techniques used in the project is performance capture. Van der Velden physically acted out Tilly’s movements and expressions so the digital character could mirror a human performance. But the production was far from automated. According to Particle6, a team of 18 people worked on the video. The group included a director, editor, production designer, costume designer, comedy writer and creative technologist. In other words, the project still relied heavily on human creativity.
“Tilly has always been a vehicle to test the creative capabilities and boundaries of AI,” van der Velden said. “It’s not about taking anyone’s job”. She added that even with powerful tools, good AI content still takes time, taste and creative direction.
The project also reflects how quickly production technology is evolving. Tools that once required large studios are now accessible to smaller creative teams experimenting with AI-driven storytelling.
For Particle6, the character of Tilly Norwood acts as a testing ground. Each project explores how AI performers might be developed, directed and integrated into entertainment. Whether audiences embrace digital actors remains an open question. Many in the industry are still wary of how AI could reshape creative work.
But projects like Take the Lead show another possibility. Instead of replacing performers, artificial intelligence could become part of the creative process itself. In that sense, Tilly Norwood may represent something more than a virtual performer. She is also an experiment in how humans and machines might collaborate in the future of entertainment.
Keep Reading
HKU professor apologizes after PhD student’s AI-assisted paper cites fabricated sources.
Updated
January 8, 2026 6:33 PM
.jpg)
The University of Hong Kong in Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong Island. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
It’s no surprise that artificial intelligence, while remarkably capable, can also go astray—spinning convincing but entirely fabricated narratives. From politics to academia, AI’s “hallucinations” have repeatedly shown how powerful technology can go off-script when left unchecked.
Take Grok-2, for instance. In July 2024, the chatbot misled users about ballot deadlines in several U.S. states, just days after President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid against former President Donald Trump. A year earlier, a U.S. lawyer found himself in court for relying on ChatGPT to draft a legal brief—only to discover that the AI tool had invented entire cases, citations and judicial opinions. And now, the academic world has its own cautionary tale.
Recently, a journal paper from the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong was found to contain fabricated citations—sources apparently created by AI. The paper, titled “Forty Years of Fertility Transition in Hong Kong,” analyzed the decline in Hong Kong’s fertility rate over the past four decades. Authored by doctoral student Yiming Bai, along with Yip Siu-fai, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and other university officials, the study identified falling marriage rates as a key driver behind the city’s shrinking birth rate. The authors recommended structural reforms to make Hong Kong’s social and work environment more family-friendly.
But the credibility of the paper came into question when inconsistencies surfaced among its references. Out of 61 cited works, some included DOI (Digital Object Identifier) links that led to dead ends, displaying “DOI Not Found.” Others claimed to originate from academic journals, yet searches yielded no such publications.
Speaking to HK01, Yip acknowledged that his student had used AI tools to organize the citations but failed to verify the accuracy of the generated references. “As the corresponding author, I bear responsibility”, Yip said, apologizing for the damage caused to the University of Hong Kong and the journal’s reputation. He clarified that the paper itself had undergone two rounds of verification and that its content was not fabricated—only the citations had been mishandled.
Yip has since contacted the journal’s editor, who accepted his explanation and agreed to re-upload a corrected version in the coming days. A formal notice addressing the issue will also be released. Yip said he would personally review each citation “piece by piece” to ensure no errors remain.
As for the student involved, Yip described her as a diligent and high-performing researcher who made an honest mistake in her first attempt at using AI for academic assistance. Rather than penalize her, Yip chose a more constructive approach, urging her to take a course on how to use AI tools responsibly in academic research.
Ultimately, in an age where generative AI can produce everything from essays to legal arguments, there are two lessons to take away from this episode. First, AI is a powerful assistant, but only that. The final judgment must always rest with us. No matter how seamless the output seems, cross-checking and verifying information remain essential. Second, as AI becomes integral to academic and professional life, institutions must equip students and employees with the skills to use it responsibly. Training and mentorship are no longer optional; they’re the foundation for using AI to enhance, not undermine, human work.
Because in this age of intelligent machines, staying relevant isn’t about replacing human judgment with AI, it’s about learning how to work alongside it.