Introduction

In recent days, Simu Liu has sparked substantive discussion by publicly questioning the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to replace background actors in film production. His views cut to the heart of a deeper issue: What happens when technology encroaches on human artistry, training pathways and opportunity structures in the entertainment industry? Here we provide a full, well-structured and SEO-friendly exploration of his perspective—why his arguments matter, what the implications are, and what we should take away.

Who is Simu Liu and why does his view matter?

Simu Liu is a Canadian actor of Chinese descent who rose to prominence via roles such as in the Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings. His background includes starting out in smaller roles and a process of building craft—making his voice relevant when discussing opportunities for newcomers and the nature of “extras” or background actors.

Because Liu is both a prominent actor and someone who has experienced the industry at different levels, his critique of AI’s role in film production merits attention: it’s not just a star’s opinion, but one grounded in lived experience.

What exactly did Simu Liu say?

“Replacing background actors with AI deprives people of the ability to pick up skills to become an actor… Film is such an artist’s medium… Of all the uses of AI … replacing art is just… the last thing anybody wants to do with AI.”

Key elements of his argument:

• Background actors (extras) are an entry point for learning craft, gaining on-set experience, and understanding film production from the ground up.
• When AI is used to replace these roles, those pathways shrink or vanish.
• Film is an inherently human artistic medium; subtle human movements, presence and authenticity matter—and replacing that with generative or synthetic actors risks undermining that authenticity.
• The use of AI in this context is not simply efficient, but may carry cultural and professional costs.

Why is this viewpoint important?

1. Training and entry-level opportunity

As Liu notes, background or supporting roles often serve as stepping-stones. If those opportunities disappear, the pipeline of talent—from novice to experienced actor—could be disrupted.

2. Artistic integrity and human presence

Film relies on shared human experiences. When AI begins to substitute human presence (even in background roles), we must ask: what is lost? The subtle energy of a scene, the authenticity of lived human behaviour, the chance for real people to be part of stories—not as star leads, but as the fabric of production.

3. Industry economics and ethics

While cost-cutting is often cited to justify AI use—why hire hundreds of extras when you can generate them digitally?—Liu suggests this logic ignores the human dimension: those extras earn, learn, grow, and perhaps become the next generation of creative talent. Removing them for efficiency also removes those human benefits.

4. Precedent setting

The argument goes beyond actors: if film replaces humans with AI in one domain (extras), what’s next? Crew? Supporting roles? Liu’s comments alert us to a broader pattern: technology’s impact on creative labour, and how we value human participation in art.

Broader industry context

The debate is not just about Liu. The entertainment industry is facing serious questions about AI: whether synthetic actors, digital likenesses, or generative extras are ethical, how they affect employment, rights, and human creativity. For instance:

• An AI-generated “actress” named Tilly Norwood, represented by a London talent agency, prompted vocal criticism from actors including Liu.
• The union SAG-AFTRA officially condemned synthetic performers, saying creativity must remain human-centred.

These show that Liu’s stance sits within a large, complex shift in how film is made, who participates, and how technology is applied.

Implications for filmmakers, actors & audiences

For filmmakers

• Efficiency vs authenticity: The temptation to replace extras with AI must be weighed against the value of real human presence.
• Contractual and ethical concerns: What rights do human actors have when digital substitutes are used?
• Storytelling considerations: Does replacing background actors with AI change the feel or authenticity of a scene?

For actors (especially early-career)

• Potential loss of low-cost entry roles: fewer chances to get on set, observe, learn.
• Pressures to diversify skillsets: Beyond acting, perhaps to navigate digital and hybrid roles.

For audiences

• Awareness of what we’re watching: Are we observing real people or synthetic creations? Does it matter for our emotional engagement?
• Appreciation of human artistry: Knowing the craft behind even “extras” might enrich how we view films.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Is Simu Liu against all uses of AI in filmmaking?
A1: Not necessarily. His specific focus is on replacing human background actors with AI, and the consequences of that. He emphasises human opportunity and craft rather than rejecting AI wholesale.

Q2: Why are background actors important?
A2: They provide depth, realism, and human context to scenes. They also often serve as stepping-stones for actors who are learning the industry. Liu highlights this dual role (artistic + developmental).

Q3: Can AI not be used to complement rather than replace human actors?
A3: Yes—many industry voices suggest complementary use is acceptable (e.g., for crowd augmentation, visual effects). The concern arises when AI replaces human roles entirely, eliminating opportunities and human presence.

Q4: What about cost savings for productions—aren’t these important?
A4: Yes, productions often operate under tight budgets. But Liu’s point is that cost savings must be balanced against human cost: loss of learning opportunities, authenticity, employment. The equation isn’t purely economic.

Q5: How does this discussion affect film audiences?
A5: At minimum, it raises awareness that what appears on-screen is the result of many human contributors—and that replacing even “extras” with AI can subtly change the texture of film. It may challenge us to ask: what difference does real human presence make?

Conclusion

Simu Liu’s comments on AI replacing background actors may at first glance seem like a niche quibble—but they actually touch on larger systemic questions: how we define artistry, opportunity, human participation and authenticity in creative fields. His perspective invites a neutral yet intellectually grounded reflection: As technology enables new possibilities, we must ask what we trade away when we replace humans with algorithms.

The query isn’t just “can we use AI to replace extras?” but rather “should we—given the learning pathways, human creative value, employment ecosystem and the very experience of film as a human medium?”

In the evolving landscape of filmmaking, AI may be inevitable—but preserving human experience, human craft and human pathways is equally essential. The full impact of substituting human extras with AI remains to be seen, but Simu Liu’s viewpoint gives us a valuable marker: a reminder that the art and business of film are not merely about pixels, but people.