Impact of AI-Assisted Creative Tools on Artists Creators Pathways to Viksit Bharat 2047
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1956/jge.v22i3.848Keywords:
AI-Assisted Creative Tools, Artificial Intelligence, Creative Process, Innovation, Ethical Concerns, Artist PerceptionAbstract
Artificial Intelligence is increasingly transforming creative domains by reshaping how artists ideate, design, and produce content. This study examines the impact of AI-assisted creative tools on artistic innovation and explores artists’ perceptions regarding the role of AI in contemporary creative practices within the broader vision of Viksit Bharat 2047. The research adopts a quantitative approach using a structured questionnaire distributed through online platforms, with a sample size of 100 respondents drawn from diverse artistic and academic backgrounds. The findings indicate a high level of adoption of AI tools, with a majority of respondents actively integrating them into their creative workflows on a daily or weekly basis. AI tools are widely perceived as catalysts for innovation, enabling faster ideation, improved efficiency, and exploration of new artistic expressions. At the same time, the study highlights ongoing concerns related to authenticity, originality, and authorship, reflecting a nuanced understanding of AI’s role as both an enabler and a disruptor. While most respondents do not believe AI will replace human creativity, they acknowledge its significant influence in augmenting creative capabilities. The study concludes that AI-assisted tools have the potential to contribute to an inclusive and innovation-driven creative ecosystem, aligning with the goals of Viksit Bharat 2047, provided ethical considerations and human-centric approaches are maintained.
References
1. Ashlock, D., & Lee, S. M. (2006). The state of the art in computational creativity. New Mathematics and Natural Computation, 2(02), 197-221.
2. Boden, M. A. (1994). What is creativity? In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of Creativity (pp. 75-118). MIT Press.
3. Colton, S. (2008). Creativity versus the perception of creativity in computational systems. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Creative Intelligent Systems (Vol. 8, pp. 18-21).
4. Colton, S., & Wiggins, G. A. (2012). Computational creativity: The final frontier? In ICCC (pp. 21-28).
5. Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating" Art" by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07068.
6. Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(7), 435-448.
7. Gero, J. S., & Maher, M. L. (1997). AI in design: Representation and search. In J. S. Gero & M. L. Maher (Eds.), Computational Models of Creative Design IV (pp. 1-28). Springer.
8. Jordanous, A. (2012). A standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems: Computational creativity evaluation based on what it is to be creative. Cognitive Computation, 4(3), 246-279.
9. Jordanous, A. (2016). A standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems: Computational creativity evaluation based on what it is to be creative. Cognitive Computation, 8(3), 391-410.
10. Jordanous, A. (2016). Evaluating computational creativity: A standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems and its application. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity (pp. 64-71).
11. Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G. N., & Togelius, J. (2015). Towards a generic method of evaluating game levels. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 37-47).
12. McCormack, J., & d'Inverno, M. (2012). Computers and creativity. Springer Science & Business Media.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Global Economy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
