There is no question that AI is in the midst of transforming marketing. The opportunities of this once-in-a-generation technology to democratise creativity is phenomenal. 

When you look beyond the alarmist headlines that AI is coming for your job, the wider industry response to AI is remarkably positive, according to this year’s All In Census. While there is concern in some disciplines such as programmatic advertising around the negative impact of AI, 63% of respondents felt enthusiastic to use AI more in their roles. 44% of respondents agree that AI has made them more effective in their jobs. While 41% use Generative AI to complete tasks fairly frequently. 

Yet while AI affords the delicious possibility of freeing up more time for human creativity, it also has the potential to perpetuate bias at scale. When you consider that ChatGPT has over 180.5 million users, of which 66% are men and only 34% are women, it is clear that there is much more to do to ensure the next wave of tech innovation is built with inclusivity at its core, not as an afterthought. With this in mind, we asked industry experts if AI is at risk of moving inclusive creativity backwards?

AI is a brilliant collaborator for optimisation. But the real core of strategy and creativity will always come from humans. AI can enhance the process, but it can’t replace the human intuition, emotional connection, and storytelling that makes great work stand out.

When joining me on Uncensored CMO, Greg Hahn, Co-Founder and Chief Creative Officer at Mischief USA, put it simply: ‘creativity rooted in real human experience is irreplaceable. While AI can generate content, it cannot replicate the nuance and depth that humans bring to the table.’ 

Inclusivity is a perfect example. As we saw in our Feeling Seen report with ITV, true inclusivity isn’t just about the end product, it’s about embedding real stories and authentic voices throughout the entire creative process. That’s something AI can’t do alone. 

System1’s Test Your Ad shows that when AI is used thoughtfully, it enhances, rather than detracts from, brand impact. Dove’s The Code campaign is a great example. It used AI to challenge artificial beauty standards while staying true to Dove’s real beauty mission, delivering exceptional sales potential and lasting brand impact. 

Those who blend human insight with AI thoughtfully will drive trust, inclusivity, and lasting impact.

AI has so much potential to support creativity, but only if we’re mindful about how it’s built and used. In music and media, where gender imbalance is still all too common – with only 3% of music produced by women – AI trained on male-dominated data can easily reinforce the same old patterns we’re working so hard to change.

That’s why the work we do at Balance the Mix really matters. By helping brands audit how they use creative talent and understand their gender splits, we give them the tools to make more conscious, fairer choices. And that same mindset needs to guide how we approach AI.

If we don’t take the time to ask who’s shaping the data – and who’s being left out – AI risks further sidelining women and non-binary creatives. But if we’re intentional, AI can actually help us build a more inclusive future. It can amplify the voices that haven’t been heard enough.

Ultimately, it’s about being proactive: questioning, auditing, and always looking for ways to balance the mix. Creativity should be for everyone – and if we get it right, technology like AI can help open the door wider, not close it.

I am very concerned at the pace of AI technological development and its adoption across industries. The tools available to us are growing increasingly powerful and the scope for corruption - on either the human or computer side - is expanding in line. I fear that, in a drive to save costs, more businesses will turn to these tools as a cheap replacement for their human talent, as we have already seen in some creative spaces. We’ve yet to grasp the scale of the human cost - in public trust, in inclusive creative expression, from raw economic dislocation - that could be inflicted by the severity of a step change like that being predicted. Not to mention that we can’t create the space for a more deliberate consideration of those consequences through regulation quicker than the technology itself improves. 

I’ve previously advocated for a form of Fairtrade certification for creative work, through which agencies/creatives could verify for their stakeholders that they do not use image-generating AI in their creative output. Like Fairtrade, this system would require oversight, but recognises that a trade-off on cost would be necessary to preserve a market for human-generated art.

AI has the power to either uplift or undermine inclusive creativity, and right now, we’re at a crossroads. Left unchecked, AI risks reinforcing the very biases we’ve fought to overcome.  Because it's being built using existing data, it often reflects the dominant culture, favouring Western norms and mainstream aesthetics while overlooking marginalised voices, non-dominant languages, and unconventional forms of expression. If creativity is reduced to what performs best in data, we risk a flood of sameness—and the quiet erasure of difference.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

AI can be a tool for liberation. It can lower barriers, giving people with limited resources or training a voice. It can amplify underrepresented cultures, translate indigenous knowledge, and help disabled creators express themselves in new ways. The key is intention. If we build with care, centring diverse voices, opening access, and questioning whose stories are being told, AI can expand the boundaries of creativity rather than shrink them.

Inclusive creativity isn’t a given in the age of AI. It’s a choice we have to fight for. The technology isn’t neutral, but our decisions can be bold. If we want AI to reflect the richness of humanity, we have to design it that way. Deliberately, urgently, and together. We must ensure that humans are responsible and power it with the right intentions.

As a board member of Brixton Finishing School, I see both the promise and peril of artificial intelligence.  

AI’s ability to democratise creative tools is often celebrated, yet its outputs can reflect - and even amplify - the biases of those who build and train these systems. Recent research from Bloomberg Technology found AI-generated images reinforced harmful stereotypes, depicting higher-paying professions predominantly as white and male, while associating lower-income roles with darker skin tones.

These representational harms don't merely reflect existing biases; they actively reinstate them. When AI-generated images consistently depict CEOs as white men and fast-food workers as people of colour, it’s not just a technical glitch; it’s a mirror held up to our industry’s unresolved prejudices.

For underprivileged, diverse talent - the very individuals Brixton Finishing School champions - this presents a double bind. On one hand, AI can lower barriers to entry, offering new ways to break into creative industries. On the other, over-reliance on AI risks homogenising creative output, stifling the fresh perspectives that true inclusion demands. Worse, if the teams designing AI lack diversity, we risk encoding yesterday’s injustices into tomorrow’s tools.

Inclusive creativity thrives on lived experience, cultural nuance and the unexpected. If we allow AI to become the default creative engine, without diverse oversight and input, we risk moving backwards, not forwards.

The solution? Insist on diverse teams building AI, and never lose sight of the human stories that drive innovation. Only then can we ensure AI is a catalyst for, not a barrier to, inclusive creativity.

Register below to receive Creative Equal's RISE 2025 Trend report from Creativebrief