Tilly Tax: A Controversial Proposal for AI in Acting
A new concept called the Tilly tax has surfaced, aimed at dissuading filmmakers from opting for AI-generated actors over their human counterparts. This idea is intended to lessen the financial appeal of using AI in film.
AI scientist Lance B. Elliott provides a thorough analysis of this proposal, highlighting that AI actors are becoming more prevalent and threatening the traditional acting profession. According to him, the distinction between real and AI actors is becoming blurrier. What’s more, the costs associated with AI performers are significantly lower.
The Tilly Tax, named after the AI character Tilly Norwood, is structured such that if a human actress, like Rachel Zegler, is requested for $10 million, producers might choose the AI option costing just $5 million. The tax would then require them to pay an additional $5 million, effectively nullifying any savings from choosing AI.
This notion, however, seems rather absurd. I view AI as just another tool in automation, similar to CGI. It’s akin to taxing car manufacturers for using robots to weld instead of human workers or imposing fees for using CGI sets instead of filming on location.
It’s worth noting that I say this as someone who might face replacement by similar technologies. However, I believe actors possess a unique value that deserves special consideration against automation—something that feels fundamentally wrong to me.
Beyond that, Elliott emphasizes that the Tilly tax won’t suffice to stop AI from taking over the industry. “An AI actor won’t arrive late or be difficult on set,” he points out. No scandals arise with AI performers, unlike the complications sometimes associated with human actors.
Furthermore, AI actors can instantly promote a film and communicate in various languages without the need for additional voiceover work, which is a significant advantage for international markets. They are perpetually available for sequels and reshoots as well.
Returning to the example of Rachel Zegler, replacing her character with an AI counterpart eliminates various pressures and potential public relations headaches. Disney could focus solely on producing films as intended without the surrounding drama. Would a production that struggled financially with a human actor really perform better with an AI one?
This brings up the question: what makes an AI actress more suitable than Rachel Zegler?
Elliott’s argument is clear: the economic and creative benefits of using AI actors are compelling, extending beyond mere cost-cutting.
I’d like to add another perspective: Hollywood currently has a plethora of young actors who may lack the star quality seen in prior generations. While a few stand out, many young actors struggle to maintain their appeal due not only to their performances but also their off-screen behavior. By utilizing AI, producers could once again create universally appealing stars and manage their public personas more effectively.
Perhaps AI could even recover an often-forgotten element of star power: charisma. We’re not suggesting anything explicit, but a hint of glamour wouldn’t hurt. The focus should be on maintaining that captivating charm, whether it’s through AI talent or human actors.
