Are Hollywood Insiders Prepping Us for the Death of Human Actors?

Adario Strange
July 10, 2026

MAN AND ROBOTS: A weekly column from MARS Magazine on AI, Hollywood, and the future of work.

📸 Hollywood Versus Mark Zuckerberg & Instagram

1. Mark Zuckerberg seems intent on using AI to transform every aspect of his business, including what many view as the last good thing about Meta, which is Instagram. The company just rolled out Muse Image, a new AI image generation tool that allows anyone to create new images based on images currently posted on Instagram. This includes celebrities and public figures, many of whom thought they were just using the service to share personal pictures with their followers. Predictably, the feature isn’t something users turn on and opt into. No, this is automatically on for all users, and in order to avoid having their images used, users must opt out of the Muse Image tool.

This has all come as a surprise to many celebrities and the organizations that represent them. The actors’ union SAG-AFTRA quickly issued a statement regarding the new Instagram policy: “Anything other than a clear and conspicuous OPT-IN for these types of uses of Instagram users’ images is unacceptable, and an utter miscalculation of public sentiment regarding the obvious dangers and harms inherent in such use.” The union also posted an instruction guide on how to opt out of the AI feature “to avoid AI generations of your Instagram posts without switching your account to private.”

Similarly, Creative Artists Agency (CAA), the management company behind Ariana Grande, Tom Hanks, Beyoncé, Will Smith, Adele, Zendaya, Lady Gaga and many others, also voiced opposition to the AI feature. “No one’s name, image, likeness, voice, or creative work should be used by any third party, including AI models, without clear, documented consent. True innovation puts creators first: respecting their rights, protecting their livelihoods, and giving them real control, not handing it over to platforms,” CAA said in a statement obtained by The Hollywood Reporter. “We have raised our concerns with Meta on behalf of our clients, voicing our disapproval and perspective on the need for a more responsible approach. We call on Meta to make protection the default on Muse Image, not the exception, and enable individuals to opt in if they want to allow usage of their image or likeness for AI content creation.”

Fuel on the Anti-AI Fire: AI has enough public perception problems now that nearly every actor and singer is voicing concerns about the future of their livelihoods in the face of AI tools threatening to replace them. The bad marketing AI didn’t need was Zuckerberg taking his habitual overreach regarding data and privacy into the supposed safe space of Instagram.

I’ve long said that if it weren’t for Instagram constantly giving Meta and Zuckerberg a positive brand wash, Meta would look even worse. Now that Zuckerberg has forced his AI obsession onto Instagram, we may see the first major cracks form in what has been Meta’s most bulletproof brand. This should also serve as a warning to other social media platforms engaging in such AI tactics with user data and images. Social media platforms are built on trust. But if users can’t trust that their special moments will remain theirs to do with as they see fit, no matter what the “Terms and Conditions” say in the fine print, many users will find other ways to share the content that these platforms are built on.

🔈 Music’s Parody Master Not Laughing at AI

2. “I’m not a fan of AI. I was offered this commercial before the tour. I’m not going to mention any names, but they told me it was for a business. It was business software that would increase productivity. And they offered me a nice pile of money. I said, ‘Oh well, yeah, sure, I could do that.’ And then a week before we’re supposed to shoot it, I find out, oh, this is, it’s AI. And I thought, ‘Oh no, I can’t be the poster boy for AI, forget it.’ So I felt bad about kind of pulling out at the last minute. But yeah, I’m not, I’m not down with that.”

-“Weird Al” Yankovic, singer, speaking to Syracuse.com

🎭 AI Actors: A Rant

3. I’ve noticed something strange in the last week that seems to give credence to some rumors I’ve heard. During a string of stories about the AI avatar dubbed Tilly Norwood and how Particle6, the company behind it, is creating a film featuring the AI construct, I’ve noticed several major publications referring to it as an AI actor or AI actress. Variety posted a story titled “Tilly Norwood to Lead New Movie ‘Misaligned,’ Marking Feature Debut for AI ‘Actor.’” The Los Angeles Times led its story with the heading, “AI actor Tilly Norwood to star in first movie.” Likewise, outlets including CBS News, Deadline, and CNET have all referred to this avatar as an AI actor.

I find this weird. Acting is a craft. It is something humans do and become. It isn’t simply a title one affixes to a thing that happens to exist. When I fire up a video game and the pre-game cutscene shows me a brilliantly rendered 3D character walking through a story point related to the game, I don’t think, “Wow, that’s a great 3D actor there.” Why don’t I say that? Because the 3D character has no agency. It has no human emotion to interpret the script that it has been synced up to deliver. And while AI is another level in the evolving stages of realistic animation, these characters are still not human and still do not have the spark of life autonomy that make human actors great. So to call these things AI actors, as many in the entertainment press have begun to become comfortable doing, is not only inaccurate but rather odd. Would these same journalists be okay with AI-generated stories, attached to made-up names of people who don’t exist, being referred to as AI reporters? AI journalists? I doubt it.

Tilly Norwood is an avatar. A puppet. A character. It is not an AI actress. Vulture (an arm of New York Magazine) seems to understand this, as it titled its recent story on the character avatar “Fake Actress Tilly Norwood to ‘Star’ in AI Film.” That is one of the few accurate headlines I’ve read about this project this month. Which leads me to the second half of the Vulture headline, which reads, “to ‘Star’ in AI Film.” Vulture’s headline snark is accurate and justified. Just because a UK studio created an AI-generated character and decided to make a film featuring the character, this doesn’t constitute news as though an independent actor or actress landed a role to star in some studio’s movie. But somehow, that’s how some of the aforementioned outlets framed the news.

For context, let’s get an update on how the first Tilly Norwood music video (Take The Lead) was received. At present, it has 433,800 views on YouTube. If we take the roughly 12,000 Likes and Dislikes on the video, 82.5% of the votes are Dislikes (2,100 Likes and 9,900 Dislikes). To be fair, as AI videos go, the video is very well done. But nearly everyone who cared to offer feedback on the video disliked it, a sentiment echoed in the comments on the video. So framing a feature-length follow-up to the music video as “An AI actor landing a role” comes off as either desperate media clickbait or Particle6 successfully marketing the story it wants Hollywood to tell. Do studios want actors they can control like puppets? I’m guessing most studio executives would bellow a hearty “NO” to that question. But when you read headlines framing an AI avatar as a competing actor, one starts to wonder if there’s quiet support from Hollywood’s business executives in favor of AI avatars replacing pricey human actors.

Context Caveat: This isn’t a rant against AI avatars and the films that include them. Quite the contrary. I’m ready to watch whatever cool ideas people come up with using AI to tell stories. But let’s not start soft conflating AI avatars with actual human actors as though they’re in true competition with one another. They may eventually compete at the box office for audience dollars (that remains to be seen), but AI avatars are no more “actors” than a Suno algorithm is a “musician.” If you enjoy AI videos and AI music, as I occasionally do, fine. But I still like to call things what they are. Translation: Truth still matters. At least to some people, like me.

🤖 Blade Runner 2027

4. Fans of the Blade Runner universe have something to look forward to in 2027, as the franchise is getting new life on Amazon Prime Video in the form of Blade Runner 2099. The series will star Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) and Hunter Schafer (Euphoria). Showrunner Silka Luisa (Halo, Shining Girls) led the production, which primarily took place in Prague, Czech Republic, and formally wrapped in 2024. The project is another Ridley Scott (the director of the original 1982 Blade Runner movie) production via his Scott Freeproduction house, with Rob Hardy (Ex Machina, Devs, Annihilation, Mission: Impossible – Fallout) leading on the cinematography front. Details on the series’ plot are scarce, but it is designed to be a sequel to both films, with Yeoh playing the role of a replicant named Olwen.

Also coming in 2027 will be a series of in-person Blade Runner experiences developed by Alcon Entertainment, Behaviour Interactive (Dead by Daylight), and PHI Studio. The experience sites will be sprinkled throughout North America and are described as a “multisensory experience [that] will plunge visitors into a dystopian world that is both visually striking and narratively rich, staying true to the aesthetic and philosophical essence of the cult classic.”

RepliCan or RepliCan’t?: Amazon Prime Video has a mixed track record when it comes to science fiction productions. Most agree that Fallout, The Boys, The Expanse, and The Man in the High Castle were excellent series. But when it comes to cyberpunk, Amazon’s scorecard is more miss than hit when considering series like The Peripheral, Upload, and Philip K. Dick’s Electric Dreams. All that said, since Scott is involved and was also behind the brilliant HBO Max series Raised by Wolves, I’m optimistic that Blade Runner 2099 is in good hands. ✍︎