When AI Takes the Lead Role ~ What Tilly Norwood’s Misaligned Means for the Future of Cinema
For more than a century, cinema has evolved alongside technology. Sound transformed silent films, colour changed visual storytelling, computer-generated imagery expanded the limits of imagination, and streaming reshaped how audiences experience films. Each transformation brought uncertainty, but Artificial Intelligence represents a different kind of shift. It is not merely changing how films are made; it is beginning to challenge who, or what, gets to create and perform them.
This debate has moved from theory to reality with Tilly Norwood, an AI-generated performer created by Particle 6 through its AI talent division Xicoia. After months of discussion surrounding the role of artificial performers in entertainment, Norwood is now set to headline her own feature film, Misaligned which is a project that places artificial intelligence at the centre of both the production process and the story itself. The film is described as a comedy-drama following an AI character without a tangible existence. The story follows that, guided by another AI character, she begins developing ambitions, emotions, and a desire to understand what it means to become “human” The premise of the movie is intentionally self-reflective. An AI performer, whose very existence has raised questions about authenticity and creativity, will now portray a character experiencing those same conflicts.
AI as storyteller?
Using Artificial Intelligence in filmmaking is not recent, for years production studios have used technology for visual effects, editing assistance, restoration, recommendation systems, and production planning. The emergence of AI-generated performers, however, introduces a far more complex question, can AI replace the actors who are core to storytelling?
When Tilly was first introduced at the Zurich film festival in late 2025 by the Dutch producer Eline Van Der Velden, CEO and Founder of Particle 6, introduced it as a hybrid model of film-making, where there are directors, producers, production team but a "synthetic performer" in the lead role and a comprehensive AI-experts team. Van Der Velden argued that human creativity was not being replaced but supplemented by AI.
This was not well received by the film community. Actors like Emily Blunt and SAG-AFTRA (the Screen Actors Guild- American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) a US labor organization representing roughly 160,000 professionals across the entertainment and media industries, including actors, performers, journalists, musicians, and voice actors, released a statement condemning this project with synthetic performer. They emphasised that ‘creativity is, and should remain, human-centered. The union is opposed to the replacement of human performers by synthetics.’
The Question of Authenticity
Acting has historically been understood as an interpretation of human experience. Performers bring personal histories, emotions, cultural backgrounds, and individual perspectives into their roles. The criticism is that an AI actor does not exist in a tangible form and essentially has no real story or background of any kind. Particle 6 describes Tilly only as a twenty-something who lives in London and loves coffee which is a very shallow context and has no personality at all. The film is also set in the fictional "Tillyverse," not a real place and exists on some cloud system reinforcing the sense that there is no lived reality behind the character.
At their core, AI performers are outputs of generative systems rather than individuals with lived experience or personal artistic interpretation. These systems learn by identifying patterns from vast datasets and generating results based on existing material, which raises questions about whether such performances can be considered original creative expression at all. Tilly Norwood's music video ‘Taking the Lead’ illustrated this gap in practice, drawing attention to inconsistencies in natural emotion, visual continuity, and expression across scenes.
Human actors, by contrast, bring authenticity and emotional depth shaped by real experience and creative interpretation which are qualities that recognition and awards have traditionally been built around. If a performance is produced through algorithms trained on existing creative patterns, a fundamental question follows: what exactly is being celebrated, the technology, the final output, or the humans guiding the system?
Creativity, Consent, and the Legal Grey Areas
AI performers also raise significant questions about intellectual property, personality rights, consent, and compensation. Existing legal and contractual frameworks were primarily designed around human performers who are individuals who negotiate compensation, own aspects of their identity, and participate in the wider cultural ecosystem surrounding cinema. However, an AI actor challenges these traditional assumptions. If a digital performer does not possess legal personhood, creative ownership, or independent rights, questions emerge regarding who should receive recognition and financial benefits: the developers, production studios, directors, or the human creators involved in building the technology?
Also if a digital actor’s expressions, movements, or style are influenced by thousands of existing performers, determining ownership becomes complicated. Who controls an AI-generated performance? Who deserves credit? Should performers have rights over how their likeness, voice, or style influences future AI systems?
Any advantages?
The most significant advantage of AI-assisted filmmaking may lie in what it offers smaller production houses and independent creators. By reducing certain production costs, AI tools could let filmmakers with limited resources attempt ambitious ideas that were previously out of reach. Beyond this production advantage, however, the acceptance of AI performers themselves remains uncertain. Projects like Misaligned are therefore less a proven shift in cinema than an industry experiment testing how far technology can move into a traditionally human creative space.
The Future of Cinema: Replacement or Reinvention?
Every major technological transformation in cinema has created fears about what might be lost, yet cinema has consistently adapted by absorbing new technologies into its storytelling. AI may follow a similar path, but the stakes are different as it does not simply change the tools available to artists, it challenges the definitions of creativity, authorship, and performance itself.
Much of cinema's economic and cultural life is really built on the bond between audiences and actors. It's actors who drive ticket sales, build loyal fan followings, and become cultural figures in their own right, through interviews, public appearances, and the visible journey of training, struggle, and growth that shapes a career. An AI-generated performer can mimic parts of that celebrity image, but it can't actually show up for any of it the way a person can. Handing central creative roles to artificial personalities also raises a fairness question, especially at a time when so many human performers are already struggling to find work.
Whether audiences will really embrace fully synthetic performers as stand-ins for human actors is still an open question. Misaligned may end up being the first real test of that. Early reaction to Tilly Norwood has been largely critical within the industry and among audiences. How viewers respond to Misaligned itself will be an early test of whether that scepticism holds.
Cinema has always found ways to absorb new technology, but AI is testing something deeper than the tools filmmakers use. As machines get better at telling human stories, the real challenge is making sure the human element behind those stories doesn't get lost.
References
- https://theprint.in/feature/tilly-norwood-tillyverse-misaligned-particle6-ai-actor/2980654/
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tilly-norwood-ai-generated-actor-feature-film/
- https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-statement-synthetic-performer
- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ai-actor-tilly-norwood-movie-debut-misaligned-1236638719/
Related Blogs
Introduction
Did you know that millions of workers today earn their livelihood through digital platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, Swiggy, and Zomato? The gig economy refers to a labour market in which individuals earn income through short term, temporary, task based, or freelance work arrangements rather than traditional long term employment. Most gig work is facilitated through digital platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, Swiggy, and Upwork, which connect workers directly with customers seeking specific services. While the gig economy has created unprecedented opportunities for flexible work, it has also exposed workers to challenges such as insecure employment, lack of social security, unfair pay, and algorithmic control. To address these concerns, the International Labour Organization adopted Convention No. 193, the world's first binding international treaty dedicated to platform workers. The Convention marks a significant step towards ensuring decent work in the digital age and is expected to guide nations in building stronger legal and social protection frameworks for the rapidly expanding gig economy.
First Gig Economy Treaty at Glance
On June 12, 2026, the course of global labor governance took a decisive turn when, at its 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva, the ILO finally ratified the Decent Work in the Platform Economy Convention (ILO Convention No. 193) with a vote of 406-8-36. This first-ever binding instrument setting labor standards for digital platform/gig workers represents the product of a lengthy multi-year debate leading to an international understanding that labor law itself had to be redefined to apply to the digital age. The Convention sought to fill a regulatory gap in which "corporation power, algorithmic governance, work informality, and workers’ rightlessness defined the space."
The Genesis: How the Convention Came to Be
The negotiations of ILO Convention No. 193 were long, complex, and controversial. The systematic ILO attention on the gig economy was started during the beginning of the 2010s as on-demand app-based models provided by Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, etc., began to transform the labor market fundamentally. The problem concerned is mass misclassification of workers.
Labeling platform workers as "independent contractors," as opposed to "employees," allows digital platforms to escape many standard labor law obligations such as minimum wage standards, social security benefits, health and safety standards, and the right to organize and bargain collectively.
Calls for international action escalated with the growth of the gig economy. 435 million people in the world were active in online gig work as of 2023, based on the World Bank Report. The platform work was added to the agenda of the ILO Governing Body in 2023. In 2024, a questionnaire was sent to member States and social partners and compiled into Report V(2): Realizing decent work in the platform economy (February 2025).
A decisive turning point occurred at the 113th International Labour Conference in June 2025 when, despite objections from employer representatives and governments like the United States, India, and Switzerland, delegates agreed to adopt both a binding Convention and a Recommendation on the issue.
A Standard-Setting Committee then produced a draft instrument throughout 2025 and early 2026. The committee's text was adopted by the committee on June 11, 2026, and by the conference plenary the following day. Civil society groups, including Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, played a role in the process through their recommendations regarding algorithmic governance, data privacy, and inclusive coverage.
Scope and Definitional Framework
The most important and contentious aspect of the Convention is its scope. The text defines "digital labour platforms" as being covered, as well as "all digital platform workers… whether in the formal or informal economy. "It is designed this way precisely because previous attempts at regulating platforms, such as the 2024 EU Platform Work Directive, which was weakened considerably by the Council's final approval, were narrow and open to carve-outs. "Digital platform worker," according to Convention No. 193, is defined as "a person who is in employment or engaged in work for the provision of a service organised and/or mediated by a digital labour platform." It makes no distinction regarding employee status, thereby evading the definitional trap that allowed platforms to deny responsibility by defining workers as self-employed. The platforms covered in the Convention include location-based (food delivery, ride-hailing, domestic care, and construction services) and online/cloud-based platforms (data annotation, content moderation, creative freelancing, and software development).
Key Substantive Provisions
- Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work :Convention 193 requires each state that ratifies it to make arrangements to "respect, promote, and realise" these fundamental principles and rights at work, which under the 1998 ILO Declaration were identified as freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of forced or compulsory labour; the abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. The question of collective bargaining rights is especially important since digital platforms have not in the past been willing to accept unions and bargaining processes, claiming that since those who work on the platform are classified as independent contractors, they do not have the right to bargain collectively.
- Fair Pay and Parity of Treatment :The Convention enshrines equal pay and treatment for gig workers: "not less favorable conditions than those offered to workers of the same employment status classification." This has the aim of remedying the two-tier system maintained by a number of digital platforms, where workers performing the equivalent job role of employees are provided with considerably lower remuneration, lacking the benefits, stability, and protection afforded to employees under statutory labor law.
- Transparency and Algorithmic Accountability:One of the most innovative features of Convention 193 is its attempt to tackle algorithmic management. Digital platforms must supply information about the terms of the working relationship in a manner that is "timely, verifiable, and easily accessible and comprehensible" and, "in all cases prior to any significant changes," must disclose how automated systems allocate work, set pay, and determine termination decisions. Civil society organisations, such as Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, sought to make algorithmic control, including human oversight over automated decisions to impose disciplinary sanctions, legally binding. While the final provision fell short of doing so, it represents a new standard for algorithmic transparency in international labour law.
- Occupational Safety and Health :Each member state will be required to take steps to prevent occupational accidents, diseases, and injuries "affecting platform workers." For location-based gig workers, such as delivery and ride-hailing drivers who are repeatedly placed in hazardous and unstable work environments, this provision is vital in addressing what is frequently referred to as a 'silent crisis' within the platform economy, as workers are often ineligible for statutory workplace injury coverage and compensation schemes.
- Social Security Access:Possibly the most significant structural reform the Convention seeks to bring about, gig workers will have a right to access social security (including medical coverage, sick pay, and retirement and maternity/parental/sick benefits), which they have been able to bypass on the grounds of independent contractor status. For decades, digital platforms have lowered labor costs by externalizing the costs of social insurance onto gig workers themselves or public welfare systems. Convention 193 attempts to render that strategy illegal under international law.
- Protection for migrant and refugee workers :There are provisions protecting migrant and refugee platform workers and ensuring rights and protection throughout the life cycle of work, covering recruitment to employment and providing protection against discrimination. Migrant workers are over-represented among those employed in low-paid and informal gig work, where they face the highest risks of exploitation and deteriorating work conditions.
- Dispute resolution: Convention 193 establishes for platform workers the right to effective and impartial complaint and dispute resolution procedures as well as appropriate remedies, meaning when a country ratifies and domesticates the convention, workers will be empowered to pursue direct claims against digital platforms, overcoming the traditional obstacles placed in the way of such action.
Enforcement Architecture and Its Limitations
Despite the convention's potential, it is subject to key difficulties in implementation. The ILO does not have the enforcement power of the World Trade Organization, and simply ratifying a Convention does not automatically give domestic law effects. Countries must integrate the Convention into their national legislation, and ratifying members are not bound to implement it until 12 months after the Convention is ratified, which has also required two ratifications for entry into force. The Convention has optional provisions excluding the scope, where the argument is for the need of flexibility in the varied labour markets. While the International Trade Union Confederation, in reaction to the exclusions, has argued that large numbers of workers could be out of its protection, the countries that resort to the exceptions have to give a justification for this practice. The enforcement of the Convention is largely a matter of political will. Countries that, like the United States, voted against the Convention, will certainly choose not to ratify and implement it in their own legal system, leaving the gig workers out of its scope.
Geopolitical and Comparative Context
Convention No. 193 did not arise in a vacuum. There has been a trend of national governments regulating platform work in various ways. Spain's Riders' Law (2021) provided for a legal presumption of employment for delivery riders, while the UK Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are workers in 2021, entitling them to minimum wage and holidays. The French Constitutional Council (2020) found platform worker charter clauses consistent with rights. Some Indian states have promoted registration for gig workers for social security purposes (though national legislation is still needed). Convention No. 193 standardises these varied efforts through international normative agreement and particularly helps lower-income states lacking capacity or power against global platforms.
Conclusion
While ILO Convention No. 193 represents a momentous milestone for platform workers, the true impact of the Convention rests on ratification, domestic legislation, and judicial enforcement, alongside consistent vigilance on the part of the trade unions and civil society. Its most significant accomplishment to date is the establishment of a new international norm: for the first time, it establishes under international law that the labor rights of platform and gig workers are state responsibilities, not discretionary private undertakings by companies, a fact made urgently necessary by the growing strength of platform power.
References
- https://www.ilo.org/resource/conference-paper/ilc/113/draft-resolution-and-proposed-conclusions-standard-setting-committee-decent
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/12/un-adopts-treaty-setting-standards-for-gig-economy-workers
- https://www.ilo.org/node/697106
- https://www.europeanpapers.eu/e-journal/decent-work-gig-economy-appraisal-eu-ilo-regulation-digital-labour-platforms
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/worlds-fi
- https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2026/06/14/2003859085
Executive Summary
A video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely shared on social media with the claim that he is being “made up” or styled by a team, with users attempting to mock him using the footage. The clip is being circulated with misleading captions suggesting it shows the Prime Minister undergoing makeup and grooming by a dedicated team. CyberPeace Foundation Research Wing, in its research, found that the viral claim is false. In fact, the viral video is not recent, but from 2016. At that time, a statue of PM Modi was to be installed at Madame Tussauds Museum. A team of artists and experts visited the Prime Minister's residence to take measurements for the statue. This misleading claim has been circulating on social media for several years. We have previously fact-checked this claim and exposed the truth.
Claim
An X user named “Adv Shubham” shared the viral video on May 27, 2026, with the caption:“This is how Modi Ji is styled…”The post also claims that the Prime Minister is regularly “made up” by a team.
- https://x.com/AdvShubhamllb/status/2059682034289946746
- https://perma.cc/FVM9-PQBP
Fact Check
The viral video is not recent. It dates back to 2016 and is related to a completely different context. During the investigation, we found the same footage on the official YouTube channel of Madame Tussauds London, uploaded on March 16, 2016.
According to the video details, it shows the process of taking measurements for a wax statue of Prime Minister Narendra Modi for installation at Madame Tussauds. A team of artists and experts had visited the Prime Minister’s residence in Delhi for this purpose.
Conclusion
The viral claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being “made up” by a team is false. The footage is from 2016 and shows a measurement session conducted for his wax statue at Madame Tussauds Museum.
.webp)
Introduction
Deepfake have become a source of worry in an age of advanced technology, particularly when they include the manipulation of public personalities for deceitful reasons. A deepfake video of cricket star Sachin Tendulkar advertising a gaming app recently went popular on social media, causing the sports figure to deliver a warning against the widespread misuse of technology.
Scenario of Deepfake
Sachin Tendulkar appeared in the deepfake video supporting a game app called Skyward Aviator Quest. The app's startling quality has caused some viewers to assume that the cricket legend is truly supporting it. Tendulkar, on the other hand, has resorted to social media to emphasise that these videos are phony, highlighting the troubling trend of technology being abused for deceitful ends.
Tendulkar's Reaction
Sachin Tendulkar expressed his worry about the exploitation of technology and advised people to report such videos, advertising, and applications that spread disinformation. This event emphasises the importance of raising knowledge and vigilance about the legitimacy of material circulated on social media platforms.
The Warning Signs
The deepfake video raises questions not just for its lifelike representation of Tendulkar, but also for the material it advocates. Endorsing gaming software that purports to help individuals make money is a significant red flag, especially when such endorsements come from well-known figures. This underscores the possibility of deepfakes being utilised for financial benefit, as well as the significance of examining information that appears to be too good to be true.
How to Protect Yourself Against Deepfakes
As deepfake technology advances, it is critical to be aware of potential signals of manipulation. Here are some pointers to help you spot deepfake videos:
- Look for artificial facial movements and expressions, as well as lip sync difficulties.
- Body motions and Posture: Take note of any uncomfortable body motions or discrepancies in the individual's posture.
- Lip Sync and Audio Quality: Look for mismatches between the audio and lip motions.
- background and Content: Consider the video's background, especially if it has a popular figure supporting something in an unexpected way.
- Verify the legitimacy of the video by verifying the official channels or accounts of the prominent person.
Conclusion
The popularity of deepfake videos endangers the legitimacy of social media material. Sachin Tendulkar's response to the deepfake in which he appears serves as a warning to consumers to remain careful and report questionable material. As technology advances, it is critical that individuals and authorities collaborate to counteract the exploitation of AI-generated material and safeguard the integrity of online information.
Reference
- https://www.news18.com/tech/sachin-tendulkar-disturbed-by-his-new-deepfake-video-wants-swift-action-8740846.html
- https://www.livemint.com/news/india/sachin-tendulkar-becomes-latest-victim-of-deepfake-video-disturbing-to-see-11705308366864.html
