AI Impact Summit 2026: Can Artificial Intelligence Democratise Creativity Without Undermining Artists?

A AI Impact Summit 2026 discussion on Tuesday analysed the paradox of AI-driven creativity, its capacity to democratise expression while simultaneously threatening artists and cultural workers.

Panellists Ziyaad Bhorat from Mozilla Foundation, Nikkhil Advani, a Bollywood director and Saranyan Vigraham from Meta in the session ‘AI and the Future of Creativity: Power, Originality, and Public Imagination’, explored questions of authenticity, consent and fairness in creative AI, alongside equitable access for creators across the globe and safeguards against misuse and manipulation.

The conversation moved beyond chips and hardware of AI, shifting towards the intangible dimensions that can genuinely sustain human creativity, critical thinking and analysis.

The speakers questioned how much we are truly learning from the AI models we have created, particularly when it comes to recognising their errors and reflecting on their misuse. They emphasised the need to pause, assess the mistakes of artificial intelligence and incorporate those lessons into future development.

Vigraham argued that the AI era differs fundamentally from the age of the internet, as society is now increasingly dependent on algorithms. He noted that the internet was largely open and community-driven, whereas the AI ecosystem is shaped by models optimised for revenue and clicks.

He added that the underlying motive has shifted away from democratising digital space, a change he sees as detrimental. According to him, this shift raises serious concerns about how artists are represented and protected, particularly when their work risks being absorbed, replicated or cannibalised by AI systems.

“We are in the first phase of AI, a nascent stage. We need to figure out how the legal framework around AI works, taking into account the compensation and fair use,” he said, adding that we have an opportunity to shape AI.

The panelists also analysed how AI is compromising creativity and originality. Advani, who has directed popular movies like Kal Ho Na Ho, acknowledged that AI does have advantages, however he personally does not employ it in his filmmaking.

He argued that it is human creativity that distinguishes the exceptional ten per cent of art from the remaining 90, underscoring the enduring need for originality.

By way of example, he noted that AI can compensate for technical shortcomings,  such as making up for the time lost or fixing lighting in a missed shot,  but it cannot replicate the distinctly human element, including imperfections.

He added that “a good film is a series of mistakes, a great film celebrates those mistakes”;  he suggested, AI is incapable of making truly unique errors.

Bhorat expanded on the argument, stressing the importance of recognising the contrast between human imagination and the outputs generated by AI when given identical prompts.

He remarked that creativity is cumulative, “we stand on the shoulders of giants, and we have to think of the future as well.” 

He suggested that AI should be treated as a collective endeavour, one that accounts for consent and compensation, and urged policymakers, as well as the broader economic framework surrounding this field, to remain cognisant of these responsibilities.

While discussing how to democratise the technology without producing flattened, uniform outputs that homogenise society, Vigraham emphasised that transparency is essential.

He argued that people must clearly understand the systems they are engaging with, and that AI infrastructure should be opened up in a civic-minded way rather than confined to closed, commercial ecosystems. He added that the capacity to build AI models should be accessible to those with “good ideas, not just the ones with good money.”

The models we create should be sensitive to the culture around it, Bhorat said, adding that while at an individual level we should push ourselves to be critical and analytical, “we also need to call out policy-makers as well for being short-sighted.”

At a time when we are increasingly compelled to question what is real and what is not, it is vital to remain vigilant that AI does not encroach upon or undermine human rights, Advani concluded.