#Ketchuptalks: Joel James and Rishabh Suri on how they see the role of AI in creative work today!

Joel James, Co-founder and Chief of Innovation, and Rishabh Suri, Co-founder and Chief Content Officer at Studio Blo, discuss how AI and human-led imagination can coexist in creative work.

The role of AI in creative work has become one of the most contested conversations in the industry today. As AI tools move deeper into creative workflows, they raise fundamental questions about authorship, intent, and the very nature of imagination. For one side of the debate, AI is seen as a powerful collaborator, a way to redistribute labour in the creative industry by taking over repetitive, time-consuming tasks so creators can focus more fully on ideation, storytelling, and original thought. In this view, AI does not replace creativity but creates the conditions for it to flourish.

On the other hand, there is growing unease around AI-generated art, with critics arguing that much of it feels detached, formulaic, or devoid of lived experience. For them, the concern is not just about aesthetics but about respect, whether automation risks flattening human expression and reducing creativity to a set of prompts and outputs. This tension sits at the heart of the current moment. 

This interview looks at that divide through the perspectives of people working directly within AI-driven creative spaces. It brings together insights from Joel James, Co-founder and Chief of Innovation, and Rishabh Suri, Co-founder and Chief Content Officer at Studio Blo, an AI-native filmmaking lab and studio. Together, they talk about how they are dealing with this shift in their everyday work, where they personally draw the line with AI, and what still remains firmly human in the process of storytelling.

Also Read: #KetchupTalks: Jeel Gandhi on the necessity of long-term thinking for young creators

Here's what they shared! 

AI is redistributing power in the creative industry. What part of the traditional value chain do you think AI threatens the most, and what part do you think it strengthens?

Joel reflects on how AI is fundamentally reshaping the creative value chain, particularly the structures that once relied on access, hierarchy, and friction. According to him, seniority, scale, and infrastructure earlier decided who got a voice, but that is no longer the case. He points out that AI is disrupting those old power structures and shifting influence away from traditional systems.

What AI strengthens, instead, Joel believes, is lived experience and taste. For him, experience today is no longer measured by how many years someone has worked, but by the life they have lived. He emphasises the importance of the art one has consumed, the places one has travelled to, and the cultures one has absorbed, noting that this depth helps creators escape the increasingly processed and homogenous content seen online.

“AI can generate endlessly, but it can’t replicate lived context.” - Joel James

"The industry is entering an era where taste becomes the real currency. When execution becomes cheap and easily accessible, having a distinct point of view, a recognisable style, and the confidence to be specific matters more than ever." Joel connects this shift to a broader change that began during COVID, explaining how a generation of bedroom creators, filmmakers, musicians, and artists can now move from idea to global stage without traditional gatekeepers. In his words, “AI just spins that wheel faster. It gives anyone with a strong idea the ability to showcase their work at scale.”

Ultimately, he believes that power is moving away from institutions and toward individuals who possess experience, taste, and the courage to express it.

Is the fear of AI in creative industries justified, or are we overestimating its ability to replace human-led processes?

Rishabh, "The conversation around AI is currently tilted in the wrong direction. It is being underestimated more than overestimated, largely because the scale of the shift has not yet been fully absorbed." He points out that for the first time, storytelling at a Pixar level scale is possible without deep logistical, technical, or financial barriers, and that fundamentally changes who gets to create. This moment is a broader cultural transition. According to Rishabh, if industrialists once dictated power, and later coders shaped the world, we are now entering the age of storytellers. The people with the strongest imagination and narrative instincts will increasingly shape culture, influence, and even world order.

“AI doesn’t replace human creativity; it amplifies those who already have something meaningful to say.” - Rishabh Suri

Joel addresses the anxiety surrounding this shift by reframing what is actually being disrupted. He explains that much of the fear comes from the assumption that creativity itself is under threat, when in reality, what is being compressed is execution. “What AI really replaces are inefficient processes, not original thinking,” he says. Roles built entirely on repetition or access to tools will naturally evolve or disappear, while those rooted in taste, decision making, and intent become more powerful. From a practical standpoint, Joel observes that this shift raises expectations rather than removing human involvement. He notes that weak ideas are exposed faster, while strong ideas travel further and are built more quickly. “AI doesn’t remove the need for humans; it raises the bar for them. Human-led processes do not vanish; they become more visible. We’re not watching creativity die. We’re watching it lose its training wheels.” Ultimately, the discomfort many feel is not about replacement, but about being pushed to think more clearly than ever before.

When you use AI as a creative partner rather than a tool, what is the one part of your creative process you refuse to automate and why?

Joel knows that two things will always remain human. The first, he says, is intent. No matter what he is creating, an ad film, a shot, or a piece of music, the idea has to exist in his head first. He explains that when working on music, he usually hums a melody into his phone, takes it into a DAW, and builds a track around it. While today’s tools can take that same hum or beatbox and turn it into a full composition, he sees the distinction clearly. “The key thing is, the melody still came from me.” The same applies to visuals. If he does not already see the shot in his head, he feels there is no point in letting technology think for him. “It’s incredible at translating intent, but it can’t replace having intent in the first place.”

The second thing is judgment. He describes it as a strong yes and no system, pointing to the idea that great creative work is less about adding and more about removing. Knowing what does not belong is as important as knowing what does. While generation can be endless, taste is not. “Taste comes from experience, failures, references, and instinct.” For Joel, faster execution and wider exploration are useful, but the final calls remain human. What stays, what goes, and what feels right are decisions he does not see himself ever handing over.

At what point does collaboration with AI turn into dependency and how do you safeguard yourself against that line?

Rishabh draws a sharp line between collaboration and dependency. "Collaboration turns into dependency when laziness and mediocrity creep in, especially when ideas dry up and the tool becomes the origin point instead of a sparring partner. That is where the real problem begins." He points to the clear difference between stepping away from screens to observe life, watch films, sit in isolation, write, and think deeply, and then using technology to question, refine, or stress test ideas, versus simply asking it to generate ideas from scratch. “The line is fine, but it’s critical.” For him, it should never be the source of intent. Its role, he explains, is to enhance clarity, articulation, or execution.

What do you think the Indian media ecosystem still misunderstands about AI production that global studios have already embraced?

Rishabh pushes back against the idea that the technology exists mainly to make things cheaper. While he acknowledges cost efficiency as a benefit, that is not the real unlock. The real shift lies in increasing production value and operational leverage. He points to how global studios are already using it to expand worlds and scale imagination. "Shows like House of David on Prime use it to depict expansive mythological realms with a level of detail that would traditionally take years of CG work. The technology actually accelerates ambition."

At the same time, Rishabh observes that within the Indian ecosystem, there is a small but growing group, the top one per cent, who truly understand this shift and are adopting it in a value-first way and his team is fortunate to collaborate with many of them.

Where do you see the strongest resistance to AI adoption? Is it cultural, technical, or economic?

Rishabh, "The resistance is primarily cultural, that every transformative technology faces pushback, with history repeating itself in predictable ways." He points out that Charlie Chaplin once said that sound would be the death of cinema, and that painters believed cameras would end imagination. Today, it is almost impossible to imagine filmmaking without sound or a camera.

For him, resistance to this shift sits in the same lineage. It is fear rooted in disruption rather than reality. Over time, audiences and creators adapt, because “the tool doesn’t eliminate creativity, it expands it.” He believes this change will feel especially natural for the next generation. A five-year-old today “doesn’t need to step onto a film set to understand storytelling,” he explains. The ability to imagine and create is already in their hands.

Rishabh sees the resistance as temporary. Once it becomes part of the creative language rather than a threat to it, he says, “the conversation will move from fear to possibility.”

What’s the most counterintuitive lesson you’ve learned while merging engineering systems with artistic imagination?

Joel has found that the most counterintuitive lesson is that structure does not restrict creativity; it protects it. "The tools we use are not magic wands and have real limitations." Most, he explains, are designed to look impressive in short bursts, highly social-media-ready, fast, and flashy. But when applied to long-form storytelling, ad films, or cinema, “they often fall apart. The cracks start showing in consistency, control, and intent.” For him, this is where engineering systems become crucial. "At Studio Blo, the team is willing to do the boring, unsexy work of deep technical problem solving so directors and artists don’t have to cut their thinking short because of AI.” Their job, he emphasises, is to ensure technology never becomes a creative ceiling.

Even in their latest AI-driven films, Joel insists that the goal has never been to use it as a shortcut. “It’s always been about pushing the technology to serve the vision, not forcing the vision to fit the technology,” he explains. For him, engineering done right does not replace imagination; it “creates the space for it to go further.” He concludes that AI is a rough tool, and he is happy to do the boring work so artists “never have to shrink their thinking because of it.”

What do you think about this ongoing conversation? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.

For more such content, follow us on @socialketchup