September 27, 2025 • 23 mins
The episode examines the dramatic arrival of Tilly Norwood, touted as Hollywood's first fully AI-generated actress, created by Eline Van der Velden’s studio, Xicoia. The episode explores how Norwood's potential signing by major talent agencies signals a seismic shift in the entertainment industry, driven by the need to slash production costs and expand creative possibilities through artificial intelligence. Furthermore, the source details the broader context of AI integration in Hollywood, noting its use in everything from voice modulation and de-aging technology to generative scene creation, often raising concerns about labor displacement and intellectual property infringement. Finally, the article discusses the intense ethical backlash and debate surrounding digital actors like Norwood, focusing on fears that AI will devalue human artistry and lead to a jobs apocalypse for actors and writers.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to the deep dive. Our emission, as always,
is to cut through the noise, you know, help you
really get a handle on the big shifts happening out there.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
And today we're looking right at the future, not history,
but what's coming. Honestly, that future looks uncannily like a
well perfectly rendered digital starlett who doesn't actually have a pulse.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
What's it exactly? We're diving deep into Hollywood, a place
we think of with icons, right Marilyn Monroe, Tom Cruise,
real people, real charisma, sometimes real messiness. But something huge
just happened. The news broke September twenty seventh, twenty twenty five,
at the Zurich Summit, no less, and suddenly the chatter
wasn't just rumors. Major talent agencies, the big players were
seriously looking at signing their first fully AI generated actress.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
And this actress, Tillie Norwood, she's completely synthetic. This isn't
just like fancy CGI. The really big deal here is
that she's on the verge of getting traditional representation, you know, agents, managers,
the same setup that guide's careers for living, breathing a listers.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
The second she signs that contract, the whole meaning of
talent arguably shifts, and the stakes they're massive. Tilly was created,
engineered really by Elaine Vanderbilden. She's an actor turned technologist,
founded this new AI talent studio, Shiquoya.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Right, and this isn't some you know, indie R project.
Our sources suggest this signal is a huge potential pivot
for the industry. Yeah, we're talking slashing production costs, maybe
opening up new creative avenues.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
And fundamentally challenging what it even means to be a
movie star.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
It's that moment where the cost benefit math on human
talent starts looking different. Budgets keep going up, the streaming
wars need constant content, localize fast AI stars like Tilly.
They aren't just an option anymore. They're looking like an
optimized solution.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Okay, so let's untack this. That's our mission today. Why now,
what's the tech actually doing behind the scenes with Tilly?
Where there like precedents and other fields that pave the way,
and of course the ethics, the inevitable backlash, the human
cost of optimizing everything with Yeah, that's crucial. So let's
start at the beginning. Meet the creator, understand how you
(02:05):
engineer charisma sounds good.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Got to understand the machine before we get to.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
The fallout exactly. So first up, Eleene vnder Belden, the
visionary if you will. And she's not just some coder, right,
her background is as an actor, a comedian.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, and that's absolutely key. She understands performance, the nuance,
the timing, the little things, the micro expressions that usually
make AI performances feel well, robotic or just off.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
It's the difference between coding something that looks human and
understanding why a certain look works, why it lands a
joke or builds tension totally.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
And her main AI firm is Particle six. Jaquoya, the
studio that made Tilly is an offshoot of that. So
this wasn't just a whim. It was a deliberate, you
could say, industrial scale move to apply AI engineering directly
to managing performers.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
And the timing, launching Jaquoya just days before the Zurich announcement,
that feels very intentional.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Oh definitely, So Tilly Nor She wasn't discovered in a cafe.
She was engineered, no headshots needed, she was designed for
maximum star quality. Can you walk us through the tech
the toolkit that made her demo real so convincing.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Sure, it wasn't just one AI model. Sources say it
was a sophisticated toolkit, maybe ten cutting edge AI platforms
all working together.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Ten platforms integrated.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Yeah, an integrated system. And apparently chet GPT was specifically
used for like scripting her personality and behavior, not just
writing dialogue, but training her to react, to improvise, almost simulating,
you know, some kind of psychological depths.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
So the dialogue wasn't just fed to her, it was
learned she could act conversationally in a sense that.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Seems to be the idea. And then you had advanced
generative models for the hyperrealistic visuals. Putting it all together
meant they could train Tilly for consistency, for subtlety. The
goal wasn't just looking real, but acting reliably real, take
after take under different lights, which is huge for production
and the result. People who saw the demo reel described
her as having both wide eyed innocence and sultry intensity.
(04:06):
I mean that's language usually saved for I don't know,
classic stars like Ava Gardner or maybe Natalie Portman, not code.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
And that's Vandervelden's pragmatic genius. Yeah, maybe her whole angle
is based on market mechanics. She's directly using AI to
tackle Hollywood's biggest headaches. Yeah, runaway costs and the unpredictability
of human talent, which, let's face it, impacts the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Yeah, she was pretty blunt in that LinkedIn post. The
quote was audiences care about story, not whether the star
has a pulse that cuts right through the romance of acting.
Doesn't it straight to the economics.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
And the economics are powerful. Vandervelden's argument is AI can
take production timelines that are months long and shrink them
down to days. And think about the operational perks they mentioned.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Right, the low risk asset idea.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Exactly, you get the ultimate low risk asset.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Give us that Romcom lead example again, because that really
nails the efficiency point, especially globally.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Okay, picture this. A lead actor, never tired, never sick,
doesn't need a giant trailer complex, no multimillion dollar insurance
for stunts. Okay, And here's the killer app for global distribution.
She can instantly, flawlessly dub her own lines in Mandarin, Spanish, French, whatever,
No need for separate voice actors, no bad lip sync
(05:20):
all done on the server.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
That just wipes out months of post production, huge travel costs.
It's instant localization.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
It's not just saving cash, it's slashing logistical risk and
getting content to market way faster. And apparently that demo reel,
a fully AI made short film. It showed fluid dialogue,
really expressive gestures, even what looked like improvised reactions. People
called it eerily human.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
That's the leap, isn't it beyond just CGI doubles to
something that feels like a nuanced performer? Right?
Speaker 2 (05:48):
And Giquoya's business plan, according to the sources, is explicitly
to create, manage, and monetize a whole stable of digital stars.
Hilly's just the first, the flagship. They're aiming for volume, predictability.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
But this is where it gets sticky, Right, the legal questions,
the money questions. Agencies are lining up trying to fit
this square peg into a round hole of existing contracts.
So the first huge question, who owns Tilly Norwood's image rights?
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Oh, that's a legal nightmare waiting to happen. Is it
vander veldn Shaquoia, the company or maybe the companies that
made those ten AI platforms she was trained on do
they have a claim? It blows up decades of IP law.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Based on human beings and the question that must keep
actors awake at night. If Tilly stars in a huge bomb,
a flop that would normally kill a human actor's career
for years, what happens? Does Ukoya just tweak her code,
maybe change her hairstyle, and book her for the next gig?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Almost certainly? Yeah, the performance doesn't have the same consequences.
It's a totally different model. The talent is renewable, optimizable.
The failure isn't Tilly's, it's the project's failure. The code
gets updated that gives a non existent performer incredible career stability.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Wild and we should mention this didn't come out of nowhere. Financially,
there was a precedent set just before Tilly hit the
news right with an AI musician.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Yes, Sanni Monet. She proved digital talent could be seriously bankable,
like seven figures bankable.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Okay, tell us about her.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
She was created by a poet, Talicia Jones, using the
Suno platform. It turns poetry into songs. Monet's R and
B vocals went viral caused a huge stir about artistry.
Uh huh. But bottom line, she landed a massive three
million dollars record deal with Hollwood Media after a bidding
war that basically set the market price for top tier
(07:33):
synthetic talent.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
You had human artists like Saa and Kalani pushing back,
saying it devalues human work.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Right, big backlash from artists, But critically, Jones kept the
rights licensing the Xanni monet persona like software. The money
was made despite the debates. So Tilly Norwood is really
just the movie version of that financial and legal playbook.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
The music industry kind of stress tested the model for
monetizing synthetic personas agent saw how it could work exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
They're not buying a performer, they're licensing a brand asset.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Okay, so that's the stage, But Tilly didn't just materialize.
To really get why this is happening, now, we need
to look at how AI has been quietly creeping into
Hollywood already, and it seems like the twenty twenty three
strikes really accelerated things, or at least brought the issue
to a head.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
That's vital context. Yeah, yeah, those strikes, SAGFTRA and the WGA.
They weren't just about residuals and old grievances. A huge
part was the fear, the prophetic fear about synthetic performers
and generative AI. The writers and actors saw this freight
train coming and the.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Deal that ended the strike, the SAGAFTR one. It did
put in some protections, some guardrails. Can you remind us
what those were and maybe why they aren't necessarily stopping Tilly?
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Sure, so the studios now need explicit consent to create
AI replicas digital twins of real actors, and importantly they
have to compensate the actor for that use. The idea
was to stop them scanning someone once and then using
the digital ghosts forever without paying right.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Seems reasonable, it does?
Speaker 2 (09:03):
But the enforcement, Yeah, that's where it gets really marky.
That's the problem.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
How so what's the loophole?
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Well, there are these clauses quite vague allowing exemptions for
things like satire or parody. So theoretically you could see
unauthorized deep fakes maybe getting a pass under the First Amendment.
It makes it super difficult and expensive for actors to
truly control their likeness once it's out there digitized or
even just part of the data. AI trains on.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
The line between satire and just theft gets really.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Blurry, dangerously blurry. And meanwhile, AI is already everywhere in Hollywood,
often totally uncredited, even in big fancy productions.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Give us some examples. Where is it hiding in plane sight?
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Oh, it's the invisible Coastar. Now it's doing voice and
accent work, like helping Adrian Brody nail his Hungarian accent
in the Brutalist, or subtly tweaking voices for authenticity like
an Amelia Perez. And then there's the big one everyone knows, de.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Aging, Yeah, the d aging text seeing it all Tom Hanks,
Harrison Ford. It's not a gimmick anymore. It's standard practice,
a way to extend the careers of bankable stars.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
And the visuals are getting scarily good. VFX places like
Metaphysic are making facial renders you just can't tell from reality.
But the real shift maybe is generative scene creation. Startups
like Runaway Lionsgate is backing them, are training AI on
huge libraries of studible footage.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
To do what generate backgrounds.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Yeah, and more generate whole digital environments or slash the
time it takes to do complex CGI shots. What used
to take weeks for teams of artists might not take hours.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
That's the efficiency argument in.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Action and oded Grenade from Hour one put it perfectly,
he said, AI let's creators control every pixel just using
text prompts. That level of granular control is basically what
makes someone like Tilly nor Would possible.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
And the tools are getting really specific now right like
swapping actors.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Out absolutely things like higgs Field Steel or Wan replace.
They can swap actors at a finished scene, matching the motion,
the lighting in the expressions. Mirage Studio has models that
can simulate entire performances, lip sync emotions, the works. Tilly
is just the logical endpoint of building all these substitution.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Tools and connecting this wider. This isn't just about making
movies cheaper on set. It feels like a bigger corporate
push towards digital twins, monetizing fame twenty four to seven.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
That's the big business play for sure. Look at meta
reports say they're paying millions to stars people love like
Judy Dench Aquafina just for their AI voice rights. Why
to build celebrity chatbots constant engagement assets.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
And it's not just actors right, athletes too.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
Yep. Companies like Soul Machines are making digital twins of athletes.
Francis Singani was an example. Fans can interact with this,
this live responsive version of the celebrity anytime. Wow, and
this whole strategy infinitely scalable celebrity interaction. It leads straight
back to that Mark and Drayson quote. Everyone mentions the
idea we could be watching Tom Cruise films for the
next one thousand.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Years because of the Mark. It might just prefer the
known quantity, the reliable brand, over messy, unpredictable new human stars.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Potentially. Yeah, but the second you start training Ai on everything,
Tom Cruise, the Simpsons, whatever, you slam right into a
legal wall. What are the big ip fights happening? Now?
That sort of set the stage for Tilly's legal drama.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
The lawsuits are defining this whole era. Disney Universal filed
a huge one in June twenty twenty five against mid Journey,
the accusation that Mid Journey basically scraped massive amounts of
copyrighted stuff Star Wars images, Simpsons characters to teach its
Ai how to draw how to create.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Its look, so alleging theft of creative DNA essentially pretty much.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
And it's not just corporations fighting back.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
No, definitely not. You had over four hundred celebrities, big
name authors, a list actors signing open letters saying AI
can't just train on their work without permission, without license.
They're trying to draw a line in the sands, saying
AI can't just eat culture to create its own stars,
which makes the Tilly Nooid situation even more ethically arched.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
And then there's the whole incredibly tricky issue of rights
after someone dies. That James Earl Jones deal for his
Darth Vader voice that felt like a watershed moment.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Is huge meets his iconic voice can live on technically forever,
and his estate gets paid. But wow, the ethical questions
about legacy, about turning an artist's work into a commodity
after they're gone. Who owns the voice, the estate, the artist,
the studio that digitized it.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Tilly kind of sidesteps that because she was digital from birth.
Shaquoya and Vandervelden own her, but that precedent for monetizing
a digital legacy, it's definitely.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Relevant for sure, and Hollywood is already processing this, even
making art about it. You mentioned films like Natasha Leon's
on Canny Valley or Luca guad Nino's Artificial, which apparently
satirizes exactly this kind of chaos till he represents.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
The industry is already grappling with this hybrid reality on screen.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
It's always been self referential, hasn't it. Now it's using
the new tech to critique the.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
New tech, which brings us rarely to the backlash, the
human reaction. Beyond the efficiency talk, Tilly Norwood's arrival has
triggered this really visceral fear about jobs, especially among actors.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Oh, immediately you saw it explode on x Twitter, that
viral post rip Hollywood, AI just kill the actor's dream.
That's not just online noise. It's real anxiety, particularly for
the actors who aren't the household names.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
And there's data suggesting certain roles are more vulnerable.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yes, a chat GPT analysis highlighted background performers as most vulnerable.
And it makes sense, right, Genitive crowds are getting so good,
so customizable, why hire hundreds of human extras? It removes
a key entry point, a source of income. For people
starting out.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
That's a huge chunk of the industry's workforce just potentially gone.
And if you're a studio exec, the calculation looks grim.
For humans, Why deal with the unpredictability, the salary demands,
the potential pr headaches of a rising star like a
Rachel Zegler. When an AI like Tilly offers tireless, customizable perfection,
no union issues, no bad tweets.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
The business logic is almost undeniable, which is exactly why
the main criticism centers on this idea of devaluing the
art itself. Professor Stacy Lee at Johns Hopkins argues AI
just can't replicate the emotional depths of a real human artist.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
That is that depth something audiences genuinely register or is
it something the industry values internally.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
That's the debate, isn't it and AI performance is simulated? Emotion?
Critics say, Okay, it might look perfect, but without real
lived experience behind it, the art feels hollow, like slop
as some call it. Remember Sag after his mantra and
the strikes augmentation not replacement, right, But that feels pretty
thin when you see tools like Ali Baba's one two
(15:41):
point two animate cloning actors frame by frame. I mean
that is substitution, plain and simple.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
And the legal fights over likenesses, they're still going right,
testing the boundaries absolutely.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Lucasfilm is still dealing with the fallout from using Peter
Cushing's likeness in Rogue one years later. It shows these
posthumous rights issues are far from settled. Rules are being
written as we speak, often in court.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Which must put enormous pressure on living actors. Now sign
away your digital.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Rights or risk becoming irrelevant exactly. Salma Hayek's show Ruby
Speaking even satirize this dilemma. Actors feel forced to sign
away their image rights just to survive in this changing landscape.
Sources called it a civil war over consent bubbling up
in the acting community. It's a scramble for control before
the tech just becomes standard practice.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
And here's something really disturbing. The source is highlighted the
direct link between realistic AI celebrity clones and actual fraud.
This erodes trust across the board.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Yeah, this is the really dark underbelly of deep face.
That specific story, an AI Brad Pitt deep fake used
in a romance scam defrauded a frenchwoman out of eight
hundred and thirty thousand Eurostliva Trace to Nigeria and similar
scams use George Clooney fakes.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
That's terrifying. If AI can mimic an a lister well
enough to scam someone out of that much money, how
can anyone trust what they see online? Period?
Speaker 2 (16:58):
It absolutely fuels concern that even harmless entertainment, AI normalizes
digital deception, making sophisticated scams easier and more scalable. If
AI can perfectly fake a celebrity, the potential for financial
crime just skyrockets, and that feeds right back into the
online anger people calling AI slop trained on stolen art.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
That specific phrase slot train on stolen art. You hear
it a lot online, accusing Shaquoya of basically plagiarizing struggling
artists to build their star.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
It sets up this huge ethical contradiction. Vanderbilden says Tilly
is here to augment the industry, but the backlash is fierce.
Critics say AI just mimics human brands, steals the creative
work of artists who are starving, and lacks that genuine
human spark anyway, As one online comment put it celebrities
aren't starving, but small artists are and their work is
feeding the machine. It's corporate optimization versus independent artists.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Okay, let's pivot. Then look towards the future. If Tillyanor
would actually get signed by a major agency, what does
that signal for the industry structure? Sources suggest this idea
of a dual ecosystem.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Yeah, that prediction seems to be gaining traction. It basically
sketches out the next decade or so. The theory goes
human stars, the big icons. They get reserved for the
prestige projects, the big budget dramas, the awards, bait roles
where you need that human touch for marketing, press tours,
genuine connection.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
And Tilly and her digital colleagues, where do they fit?
Speaker 2 (18:24):
They become the workhorses for volume production for global reach.
Think mid budget thrillers, formulaic rom coms, the endless stream
of content needed for global platforms, stuff that needs to
be localized, fast and cheap for a streamer needing to
fill a library an AI performers, speed and cost is well.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
It's a game changer, and this tech pushes the industry
way beyond just movies and TV right into totally new
ways to make money off celebrity.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Oh, absolutely forget the ninety minute film. Think monetizing digital
likenesses through virtual concerts, holographic appearances, and especially those personalized
fanchat avatars like the meta ones based on the Jenners.
That multiplies celebrity earning potential infinitely without taking up any
of the actual celebrities time.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
And the startup world is jumping all over this.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
They are rushing in. You've got companies like Anti Cruises
doing hyper real digital stunt doubles for HBO, Warner Bros.
Aige focusing on three D selfies for VFX, and maybe
the biggest sign these major deals between studios and tech
giants like Google Meta Open AI. It suggests a future
where maybe even high def feature length fan fiction could
(19:31):
become a thing.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
HD fanfix explain that what would that actually look like?
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Well, imagine if a studio licenses out the digital assets
for say Tom Cruise. Tech partners could then potentially allow
fans or maybe approved developers to generate incredibly high quality
new content featuring him. A new Tom Cruise movie set
on Mars. The AI could potentially generate a pretty polished
version relatively quickly. It kind of blows up the whole
(19:55):
scarcity model of entertainment personalized, high quality content on demand, which.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Leads to right into these two clashing views of the future,
boundless creativity on one side and a sterile monoculture on
the other.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Exactly on the optimistic side, you have people like Crystal
Ball Valenzuela from Runway. His quote is pretty inspiring. Our
ability to make things matches our imagination. The idea is,
if tech isn't the barrier anymore, creativity is infinite.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
But the counter argument is pretty stark, the fear of
optimization killing originality.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
The pessimists warn about a creative model culture endless. Tom
Cruise reboots stories engineered for maximum comfort, minimum risk. They
worry it stifles the emergence of new, diverse, maybe challenging
human voices. If you eliminate the entry level jobs like
background work, where do the next human stars even come from?
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Which inevitably raises the policy question who makes the rules
for this? It feels like the tech is miles ahead
of the law.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
That's the huge problem. Lawmakers are scrambling trying to figure
out how to protect people's likenesses, protect ip but without
totally strangling innovation, which many see is unstoppable anyway.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Why is it so hard to get policy right?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Because it needs agreement on what owning something even means
when AI can generate it. Protect actors too much you
might hurt the AI industry. Don't protect them enough, you
could wipe out careers. They're searching for that balance, protect
rights but allow progress.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
It's incredibly difficult, and this keeps bringing us back to
that James Earl Jones Darth Vader deal as maybe a
potential model.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
It keeps coming up because it offers a way. Maybe
innovation happened. The voice lives on synthetically, but it was
balanced with legacy protection because the state gets paid. Tillie
Norwood's contract, assuming she signs one, will be the next
big test case for this is the industry trying to
fold AI talent into its old structures and maybe setting
standards for how code gets compensated like human talent.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Vandervelden insists the story is what matters, pulse or no pulse,
and Hollywood, well it adapts. It seems determined to write
AI right into its own script.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
The alternative is becoming irrelevant and Hollywood always always chooses
adaptation over extinction.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
So Tilly Nordwood possibly signing with a major agency, it's
more than just news. It really feels like a manifesto
for Hollywood's next act. And the debate is just raging everywhere.
Is this innovation or invasion a smart cost cutter or
a total career killer?
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Yeah? As AI shifts from just being a tool to
being actual represented talent, the industry seems to have chosen adaptation.
You can see it already in films grappling with this
very idea like Uncanny Valley or Artificial It signals this
hybrid future is basically here. The show, as they say,
must go on pixels and all.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
In Tilly Norwood, we're releasing a starborn from our own code.
She kind of reflects our creative dreams and, let's be honest,
our deep fears about automation, about jobs. The cameras are
definitely rolling, the lawyers are probably drafting contracts right now.
But the big question, the one for you to really
think about after this is done, is this, when the
tech gets so good it can perfectly mimic that human spark,
will the industry end up mourning the original human creativity.
(22:59):
It might over shadow or will we just celebrate the
news stories this tech unlocks no matter who or what
is doing the performing
Welcome back to the deep dive. Our emission, as always,
is to cut through the noise, you know, help you
really get a handle on the big shifts happening out there.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
And today we're looking right at the future, not history,
but what's coming. Honestly, that future looks uncannily like a
well perfectly rendered digital starlett who doesn't actually have a pulse.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
What's it exactly? We're diving deep into Hollywood, a place
we think of with icons, right Marilyn Monroe, Tom Cruise,
real people, real charisma, sometimes real messiness. But something huge
just happened. The news broke September twenty seventh, twenty twenty five,
at the Zurich Summit, no less, and suddenly the chatter
wasn't just rumors. Major talent agencies, the big players were
seriously looking at signing their first fully AI generated actress.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
And this actress, Tillie Norwood, she's completely synthetic. This isn't
just like fancy CGI. The really big deal here is
that she's on the verge of getting traditional representation, you know, agents, managers,
the same setup that guide's careers for living, breathing a listers.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
The second she signs that contract, the whole meaning of
talent arguably shifts, and the stakes they're massive. Tilly was created,
engineered really by Elaine Vanderbilden. She's an actor turned technologist,
founded this new AI talent studio, Shiquoya.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Right, and this isn't some you know, indie R project.
Our sources suggest this signal is a huge potential pivot
for the industry. Yeah, we're talking slashing production costs, maybe
opening up new creative avenues.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
And fundamentally challenging what it even means to be a
movie star.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
It's that moment where the cost benefit math on human
talent starts looking different. Budgets keep going up, the streaming
wars need constant content, localize fast AI stars like Tilly.
They aren't just an option anymore. They're looking like an
optimized solution.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Okay, so let's untack this. That's our mission today. Why now,
what's the tech actually doing behind the scenes with Tilly?
Where there like precedents and other fields that pave the way,
and of course the ethics, the inevitable backlash, the human
cost of optimizing everything with Yeah, that's crucial. So let's
start at the beginning. Meet the creator, understand how you
(02:05):
engineer charisma sounds good.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Got to understand the machine before we get to.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
The fallout exactly. So first up, Eleene vnder Belden, the
visionary if you will. And she's not just some coder, right,
her background is as an actor, a comedian.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, and that's absolutely key. She understands performance, the nuance,
the timing, the little things, the micro expressions that usually
make AI performances feel well, robotic or just off.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
It's the difference between coding something that looks human and
understanding why a certain look works, why it lands a
joke or builds tension totally.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
And her main AI firm is Particle six. Jaquoya, the
studio that made Tilly is an offshoot of that. So
this wasn't just a whim. It was a deliberate, you
could say, industrial scale move to apply AI engineering directly
to managing performers.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
And the timing, launching Jaquoya just days before the Zurich announcement,
that feels very intentional.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Oh definitely, So Tilly Nor She wasn't discovered in a cafe.
She was engineered, no headshots needed, she was designed for
maximum star quality. Can you walk us through the tech
the toolkit that made her demo real so convincing.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Sure, it wasn't just one AI model. Sources say it
was a sophisticated toolkit, maybe ten cutting edge AI platforms
all working together.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Ten platforms integrated.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Yeah, an integrated system. And apparently chet GPT was specifically
used for like scripting her personality and behavior, not just
writing dialogue, but training her to react, to improvise, almost simulating,
you know, some kind of psychological depths.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
So the dialogue wasn't just fed to her, it was
learned she could act conversationally in a sense that.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Seems to be the idea. And then you had advanced
generative models for the hyperrealistic visuals. Putting it all together
meant they could train Tilly for consistency, for subtlety. The
goal wasn't just looking real, but acting reliably real, take
after take under different lights, which is huge for production
and the result. People who saw the demo reel described
her as having both wide eyed innocence and sultry intensity.
(04:06):
I mean that's language usually saved for I don't know,
classic stars like Ava Gardner or maybe Natalie Portman, not code.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
And that's Vandervelden's pragmatic genius. Yeah, maybe her whole angle
is based on market mechanics. She's directly using AI to
tackle Hollywood's biggest headaches. Yeah, runaway costs and the unpredictability
of human talent, which, let's face it, impacts the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Yeah, she was pretty blunt in that LinkedIn post. The
quote was audiences care about story, not whether the star
has a pulse that cuts right through the romance of acting.
Doesn't it straight to the economics.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
And the economics are powerful. Vandervelden's argument is AI can
take production timelines that are months long and shrink them
down to days. And think about the operational perks they mentioned.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Right, the low risk asset idea.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Exactly, you get the ultimate low risk asset.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Give us that Romcom lead example again, because that really
nails the efficiency point, especially globally.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Okay, picture this. A lead actor, never tired, never sick,
doesn't need a giant trailer complex, no multimillion dollar insurance
for stunts. Okay, And here's the killer app for global distribution.
She can instantly, flawlessly dub her own lines in Mandarin, Spanish, French, whatever,
No need for separate voice actors, no bad lip sync
(05:20):
all done on the server.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
That just wipes out months of post production, huge travel costs.
It's instant localization.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
It's not just saving cash, it's slashing logistical risk and
getting content to market way faster. And apparently that demo reel,
a fully AI made short film. It showed fluid dialogue,
really expressive gestures, even what looked like improvised reactions. People
called it eerily human.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
That's the leap, isn't it beyond just CGI doubles to
something that feels like a nuanced performer? Right?
Speaker 2 (05:48):
And Giquoya's business plan, according to the sources, is explicitly
to create, manage, and monetize a whole stable of digital stars.
Hilly's just the first, the flagship. They're aiming for volume, predictability.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
But this is where it gets sticky, Right, the legal questions,
the money questions. Agencies are lining up trying to fit
this square peg into a round hole of existing contracts.
So the first huge question, who owns Tilly Norwood's image rights?
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Oh, that's a legal nightmare waiting to happen. Is it
vander veldn Shaquoia, the company or maybe the companies that
made those ten AI platforms she was trained on do
they have a claim? It blows up decades of IP law.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Based on human beings and the question that must keep
actors awake at night. If Tilly stars in a huge bomb,
a flop that would normally kill a human actor's career
for years, what happens? Does Ukoya just tweak her code,
maybe change her hairstyle, and book her for the next gig?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Almost certainly? Yeah, the performance doesn't have the same consequences.
It's a totally different model. The talent is renewable, optimizable.
The failure isn't Tilly's, it's the project's failure. The code
gets updated that gives a non existent performer incredible career stability.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Wild and we should mention this didn't come out of nowhere. Financially,
there was a precedent set just before Tilly hit the
news right with an AI musician.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Yes, Sanni Monet. She proved digital talent could be seriously bankable,
like seven figures bankable.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Okay, tell us about her.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
She was created by a poet, Talicia Jones, using the
Suno platform. It turns poetry into songs. Monet's R and
B vocals went viral caused a huge stir about artistry.
Uh huh. But bottom line, she landed a massive three
million dollars record deal with Hollwood Media after a bidding
war that basically set the market price for top tier
(07:33):
synthetic talent.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
You had human artists like Saa and Kalani pushing back,
saying it devalues human work.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Right, big backlash from artists, But critically, Jones kept the
rights licensing the Xanni monet persona like software. The money
was made despite the debates. So Tilly Norwood is really
just the movie version of that financial and legal playbook.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
The music industry kind of stress tested the model for
monetizing synthetic personas agent saw how it could work exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
They're not buying a performer, they're licensing a brand asset.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Okay, so that's the stage, But Tilly didn't just materialize.
To really get why this is happening, now, we need
to look at how AI has been quietly creeping into
Hollywood already, and it seems like the twenty twenty three
strikes really accelerated things, or at least brought the issue
to a head.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
That's vital context. Yeah, yeah, those strikes, SAGFTRA and the WGA.
They weren't just about residuals and old grievances. A huge
part was the fear, the prophetic fear about synthetic performers
and generative AI. The writers and actors saw this freight
train coming and the.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Deal that ended the strike, the SAGAFTR one. It did
put in some protections, some guardrails. Can you remind us
what those were and maybe why they aren't necessarily stopping Tilly?
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Sure, so the studios now need explicit consent to create
AI replicas digital twins of real actors, and importantly they
have to compensate the actor for that use. The idea
was to stop them scanning someone once and then using
the digital ghosts forever without paying right.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Seems reasonable, it does?
Speaker 2 (09:03):
But the enforcement, Yeah, that's where it gets really marky.
That's the problem.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
How so what's the loophole?
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Well, there are these clauses quite vague allowing exemptions for
things like satire or parody. So theoretically you could see
unauthorized deep fakes maybe getting a pass under the First Amendment.
It makes it super difficult and expensive for actors to
truly control their likeness once it's out there digitized or
even just part of the data. AI trains on.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
The line between satire and just theft gets really.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Blurry, dangerously blurry. And meanwhile, AI is already everywhere in Hollywood,
often totally uncredited, even in big fancy productions.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Give us some examples. Where is it hiding in plane sight?
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Oh, it's the invisible Coastar. Now it's doing voice and
accent work, like helping Adrian Brody nail his Hungarian accent
in the Brutalist, or subtly tweaking voices for authenticity like
an Amelia Perez. And then there's the big one everyone knows, de.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Aging, Yeah, the d aging text seeing it all Tom Hanks,
Harrison Ford. It's not a gimmick anymore. It's standard practice,
a way to extend the careers of bankable stars.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
And the visuals are getting scarily good. VFX places like
Metaphysic are making facial renders you just can't tell from reality.
But the real shift maybe is generative scene creation. Startups
like Runaway Lionsgate is backing them, are training AI on
huge libraries of studible footage.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
To do what generate backgrounds.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Yeah, and more generate whole digital environments or slash the
time it takes to do complex CGI shots. What used
to take weeks for teams of artists might not take hours.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
That's the efficiency argument in.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Action and oded Grenade from Hour one put it perfectly,
he said, AI let's creators control every pixel just using
text prompts. That level of granular control is basically what
makes someone like Tilly nor Would possible.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
And the tools are getting really specific now right like
swapping actors.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Out absolutely things like higgs Field Steel or Wan replace.
They can swap actors at a finished scene, matching the motion,
the lighting in the expressions. Mirage Studio has models that
can simulate entire performances, lip sync emotions, the works. Tilly
is just the logical endpoint of building all these substitution.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Tools and connecting this wider. This isn't just about making
movies cheaper on set. It feels like a bigger corporate
push towards digital twins, monetizing fame twenty four to seven.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
That's the big business play for sure. Look at meta
reports say they're paying millions to stars people love like
Judy Dench Aquafina just for their AI voice rights. Why
to build celebrity chatbots constant engagement assets.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
And it's not just actors right, athletes too.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
Yep. Companies like Soul Machines are making digital twins of athletes.
Francis Singani was an example. Fans can interact with this,
this live responsive version of the celebrity anytime. Wow, and
this whole strategy infinitely scalable celebrity interaction. It leads straight
back to that Mark and Drayson quote. Everyone mentions the
idea we could be watching Tom Cruise films for the
next one thousand.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Years because of the Mark. It might just prefer the
known quantity, the reliable brand, over messy, unpredictable new human stars.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Potentially. Yeah, but the second you start training Ai on everything,
Tom Cruise, the Simpsons, whatever, you slam right into a
legal wall. What are the big ip fights happening? Now?
That sort of set the stage for Tilly's legal drama.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
The lawsuits are defining this whole era. Disney Universal filed
a huge one in June twenty twenty five against mid Journey,
the accusation that Mid Journey basically scraped massive amounts of
copyrighted stuff Star Wars images, Simpsons characters to teach its
Ai how to draw how to create.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Its look, so alleging theft of creative DNA essentially pretty much.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
And it's not just corporations fighting back.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
No, definitely not. You had over four hundred celebrities, big
name authors, a list actors signing open letters saying AI
can't just train on their work without permission, without license.
They're trying to draw a line in the sands, saying
AI can't just eat culture to create its own stars,
which makes the Tilly Nooid situation even more ethically arched.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
And then there's the whole incredibly tricky issue of rights
after someone dies. That James Earl Jones deal for his
Darth Vader voice that felt like a watershed moment.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Is huge meets his iconic voice can live on technically forever,
and his estate gets paid. But wow, the ethical questions
about legacy, about turning an artist's work into a commodity
after they're gone. Who owns the voice, the estate, the artist,
the studio that digitized it.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Tilly kind of sidesteps that because she was digital from birth.
Shaquoya and Vandervelden own her, but that precedent for monetizing
a digital legacy, it's definitely.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Relevant for sure, and Hollywood is already processing this, even
making art about it. You mentioned films like Natasha Leon's
on Canny Valley or Luca guad Nino's Artificial, which apparently
satirizes exactly this kind of chaos till he represents.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
The industry is already grappling with this hybrid reality on screen.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
It's always been self referential, hasn't it. Now it's using
the new tech to critique the.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
New tech, which brings us rarely to the backlash, the
human reaction. Beyond the efficiency talk, Tilly Norwood's arrival has
triggered this really visceral fear about jobs, especially among actors.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Oh, immediately you saw it explode on x Twitter, that
viral post rip Hollywood, AI just kill the actor's dream.
That's not just online noise. It's real anxiety, particularly for
the actors who aren't the household names.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
And there's data suggesting certain roles are more vulnerable.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yes, a chat GPT analysis highlighted background performers as most vulnerable.
And it makes sense, right, Genitive crowds are getting so good,
so customizable, why hire hundreds of human extras? It removes
a key entry point, a source of income. For people
starting out.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
That's a huge chunk of the industry's workforce just potentially gone.
And if you're a studio exec, the calculation looks grim.
For humans, Why deal with the unpredictability, the salary demands,
the potential pr headaches of a rising star like a
Rachel Zegler. When an AI like Tilly offers tireless, customizable perfection,
no union issues, no bad tweets.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
The business logic is almost undeniable, which is exactly why
the main criticism centers on this idea of devaluing the
art itself. Professor Stacy Lee at Johns Hopkins argues AI
just can't replicate the emotional depths of a real human artist.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
That is that depth something audiences genuinely register or is
it something the industry values internally.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
That's the debate, isn't it and AI performance is simulated? Emotion?
Critics say, Okay, it might look perfect, but without real
lived experience behind it, the art feels hollow, like slop
as some call it. Remember Sag after his mantra and
the strikes augmentation not replacement, right, But that feels pretty
thin when you see tools like Ali Baba's one two
(15:41):
point two animate cloning actors frame by frame. I mean
that is substitution, plain and simple.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
And the legal fights over likenesses, they're still going right,
testing the boundaries absolutely.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Lucasfilm is still dealing with the fallout from using Peter
Cushing's likeness in Rogue one years later. It shows these
posthumous rights issues are far from settled. Rules are being
written as we speak, often in court.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Which must put enormous pressure on living actors. Now sign
away your digital.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Rights or risk becoming irrelevant exactly. Salma Hayek's show Ruby
Speaking even satirize this dilemma. Actors feel forced to sign
away their image rights just to survive in this changing landscape.
Sources called it a civil war over consent bubbling up
in the acting community. It's a scramble for control before
the tech just becomes standard practice.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
And here's something really disturbing. The source is highlighted the
direct link between realistic AI celebrity clones and actual fraud.
This erodes trust across the board.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Yeah, this is the really dark underbelly of deep face.
That specific story, an AI Brad Pitt deep fake used
in a romance scam defrauded a frenchwoman out of eight
hundred and thirty thousand Eurostliva Trace to Nigeria and similar
scams use George Clooney fakes.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
That's terrifying. If AI can mimic an a lister well
enough to scam someone out of that much money, how
can anyone trust what they see online? Period?
Speaker 2 (16:58):
It absolutely fuels concern that even harmless entertainment, AI normalizes
digital deception, making sophisticated scams easier and more scalable. If
AI can perfectly fake a celebrity, the potential for financial
crime just skyrockets, and that feeds right back into the
online anger people calling AI slop trained on stolen art.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
That specific phrase slot train on stolen art. You hear
it a lot online, accusing Shaquoya of basically plagiarizing struggling
artists to build their star.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
It sets up this huge ethical contradiction. Vanderbilden says Tilly
is here to augment the industry, but the backlash is fierce.
Critics say AI just mimics human brands, steals the creative
work of artists who are starving, and lacks that genuine
human spark anyway, As one online comment put it celebrities
aren't starving, but small artists are and their work is
feeding the machine. It's corporate optimization versus independent artists.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Okay, let's pivot. Then look towards the future. If Tillyanor
would actually get signed by a major agency, what does
that signal for the industry structure? Sources suggest this idea
of a dual ecosystem.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Yeah, that prediction seems to be gaining traction. It basically
sketches out the next decade or so. The theory goes
human stars, the big icons. They get reserved for the
prestige projects, the big budget dramas, the awards, bait roles
where you need that human touch for marketing, press tours,
genuine connection.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
And Tilly and her digital colleagues, where do they fit?
Speaker 2 (18:24):
They become the workhorses for volume production for global reach.
Think mid budget thrillers, formulaic rom coms, the endless stream
of content needed for global platforms, stuff that needs to
be localized, fast and cheap for a streamer needing to
fill a library an AI performers, speed and cost is well.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
It's a game changer, and this tech pushes the industry
way beyond just movies and TV right into totally new
ways to make money off celebrity.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Oh, absolutely forget the ninety minute film. Think monetizing digital
likenesses through virtual concerts, holographic appearances, and especially those personalized
fanchat avatars like the meta ones based on the Jenners.
That multiplies celebrity earning potential infinitely without taking up any
of the actual celebrities time.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
And the startup world is jumping all over this.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
They are rushing in. You've got companies like Anti Cruises
doing hyper real digital stunt doubles for HBO, Warner Bros.
Aige focusing on three D selfies for VFX, and maybe
the biggest sign these major deals between studios and tech
giants like Google Meta Open AI. It suggests a future
where maybe even high def feature length fan fiction could
(19:31):
become a thing.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
HD fanfix explain that what would that actually look like?
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Well, imagine if a studio licenses out the digital assets
for say Tom Cruise. Tech partners could then potentially allow
fans or maybe approved developers to generate incredibly high quality
new content featuring him. A new Tom Cruise movie set
on Mars. The AI could potentially generate a pretty polished
version relatively quickly. It kind of blows up the whole
(19:55):
scarcity model of entertainment personalized, high quality content on demand, which.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Leads to right into these two clashing views of the future,
boundless creativity on one side and a sterile monoculture on
the other.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Exactly on the optimistic side, you have people like Crystal
Ball Valenzuela from Runway. His quote is pretty inspiring. Our
ability to make things matches our imagination. The idea is,
if tech isn't the barrier anymore, creativity is infinite.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
But the counter argument is pretty stark, the fear of
optimization killing originality.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
The pessimists warn about a creative model culture endless. Tom
Cruise reboots stories engineered for maximum comfort, minimum risk. They
worry it stifles the emergence of new, diverse, maybe challenging
human voices. If you eliminate the entry level jobs like
background work, where do the next human stars even come from?
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Which inevitably raises the policy question who makes the rules
for this? It feels like the tech is miles ahead
of the law.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
That's the huge problem. Lawmakers are scrambling trying to figure
out how to protect people's likenesses, protect ip but without
totally strangling innovation, which many see is unstoppable anyway.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Why is it so hard to get policy right?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Because it needs agreement on what owning something even means
when AI can generate it. Protect actors too much you
might hurt the AI industry. Don't protect them enough, you
could wipe out careers. They're searching for that balance, protect
rights but allow progress.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
It's incredibly difficult, and this keeps bringing us back to
that James Earl Jones Darth Vader deal as maybe a
potential model.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
It keeps coming up because it offers a way. Maybe
innovation happened. The voice lives on synthetically, but it was
balanced with legacy protection because the state gets paid. Tillie
Norwood's contract, assuming she signs one, will be the next
big test case for this is the industry trying to
fold AI talent into its old structures and maybe setting
standards for how code gets compensated like human talent.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Vandervelden insists the story is what matters, pulse or no pulse,
and Hollywood, well it adapts. It seems determined to write
AI right into its own script.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
The alternative is becoming irrelevant and Hollywood always always chooses
adaptation over extinction.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
So Tilly Nordwood possibly signing with a major agency, it's
more than just news. It really feels like a manifesto
for Hollywood's next act. And the debate is just raging everywhere.
Is this innovation or invasion a smart cost cutter or
a total career killer?
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Yeah? As AI shifts from just being a tool to
being actual represented talent, the industry seems to have chosen adaptation.
You can see it already in films grappling with this
very idea like Uncanny Valley or Artificial It signals this
hybrid future is basically here. The show, as they say,
must go on pixels and all.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
In Tilly Norwood, we're releasing a starborn from our own code.
She kind of reflects our creative dreams and, let's be honest,
our deep fears about automation, about jobs. The cameras are
definitely rolling, the lawyers are probably drafting contracts right now.
But the big question, the one for you to really
think about after this is done, is this, when the
tech gets so good it can perfectly mimic that human spark,
will the industry end up mourning the original human creativity.
(22:59):
It might over shadow or will we just celebrate the
news stories this tech unlocks no matter who or what
is doing the performing
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.