History repeats itself: every time a new technology emerges that could make industries more efficient, reduce costs, or broaden access for consumers, unions step in to block it. From the Luddites smashing looms to modern trade groups resisting automation, organized labor often defines “progress” not by what benefits society or consumers at large, but by what protects its members’ paychecks.
The latest battleground? Hollywood, where SAG-AFTRA, the actors’ union, has declared war on artificial intelligence and so-called “synthetic performers.”
Recently, SAG-AFTRA issued a blistering statement condemning the possible signing of Tilly Norwood, an AI-generated character. The union warned that Tilly was “trained on the work of countless professional performers, without permission or compensation,” adding that synthetic actors have “no life experience to draw from, no emotion, and… audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience.”
On the surface, this may sound like an impassioned defense of artistry. In reality, it’s a predictable attempt to suppress competition, maintain high wages, and limit consumer choice.
Why Unions Fear AI Actors
AI actors and synthetic performers represent a direct challenge to the traditional entertainment model. Instead of paying a star millions of dollars for a single role, studios could deploy AI characters that don’t need contracts, don’t demand perks, and don’t go on strike. For consumers, this could mean cheaper subscription fees, faster production schedules, and a wider variety of content. For unions, it means fewer jobs and less leverage.
That’s why SAG-AFTRA is already threatening producers, warning them they “may not use synthetic performers without complying with our contractual obligations.” In plain terms: if Hollywood can deliver films and shows more efficiently, the union intends to stop it, even if that means depriving audiences of new and affordable entertainment. Of course, this might all change if the producers kicked the right amount of money to the unions.
The Hollywood Strike and the AI Panic
The fear of AI isn’t new. The 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike placed artificial intelligence at the heart of negotiations, with union leaders insisting on strict limits for how studios could use digital likenesses. The message was clear: technology that might reduce reliance on human actors had to be regulated, restricted, and delayed.
But history shows that unions rarely represent the interests of the public. When factory automation emerged, unions initially opposed it, even though it led to lower prices and increased production. When supermarkets introduced self-checkout, unions initially resisted, although customers valued speed and convenience. Now, with AI actors, unions are repeating the same playbook: protect members at all costs, even if it means blocking tools that could democratize the entertainment industry.
The Case for Synthetic Performers
Supporters of AI in film see things differently. Van der Velden, the creator of Tilly Norwood, defended her work by comparing AI to earlier artistic innovations:
“I see AI not as a replacement for people, but as a new tool, a new paintbrush. Just as animation, puppetry, or CGI opened fresh possibilities without taking away from live acting, AI offers another way to imagine and build stories.”
This perspective makes sense. Animation didn’t eliminate live-action films; it created new genres. CGI didn’t destroy acting; it expanded the visual possibilities of cinema. Synthetic performers could become another creative option, not a total replacement for human actors, but a means to tell once-impossible stories.
The difference is that AI reduces costs dramatically, which is exactly why unions resist it. Unlike CGI or puppetry, which still rely on armies of skilled professionals, AI actors can be created and deployed quickly and efficiently. That efficiency is what scares SAG-AFTRA most.
What’s Really at Stake
Unions argue they’re defending “human artistry.” In practice, they’re defending inflated labor costs, their own bargaining power, and control over massive multi-million-dollar benefit funds, as well as members’ political slush funds that they can direct into political campaigns for personal and professional benefits. Consumers don’t benefit from higher production budgets or prolonged strikes. They benefit from lower subscription fees, more diverse content, and a faster turnaround of stories. AI actors promise exactly that.
Opponents claim that audiences will reject synthetic AI actors, synthetic performers, and unions blocking technology, citing the Hollywood strike, artificial intelligence in film, consumer choice, entertainment industry disruption, and the future of acting.
Personally, the most significant benefit is that the synthetic actors are politically neutral; everyone knows the speeches are scripted, and they don’t deliver lengthy political lectures on topics about which they have no expertise or are insulated by wealth or fame from the consequences of their actions.
— Steve
