'AI Only Works With What Has Been Expressed So Far': Prasoon Joshi Gets Candid At DNPA 2026. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one perspective or side of an issue without offering counterpoints or additional context.

The article only reports Prasoon Joshi’s perspective: - "He said human imagination will always outshine AI because machines rely only on what has already been expressed, while humans create from the 'unexpressed' within." - "Questioning the term 'artificial' in Artificial Intelligence, Joshi said AI is built on real data and human experiences, processed into different permutations and combinations." No other experts, researchers, or alternative views on AI and creativity are mentioned, and no context is given about ongoing debates in AI research.

3 suggestions

Add at least one contrasting expert view, e.g., a quote or reference from AI researchers who argue that AI can generate novel combinations or exhibit forms of creativity, to balance Joshi’s claims.

Clarify that these are Joshi’s opinions, not settled facts, by adding phrases like "he argued" or "he believes" and explicitly noting that there is debate on this topic.

Include brief context on current AI capabilities (e.g., generative models creating art, music, and text) and note that experts disagree on whether this counts as creativity.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting strong claims as if they are factual without evidence, data, or reference to supporting research.

The article relays strong, absolute statements without any supporting evidence: - "He said human imagination will always outshine AI because machines rely only on what has already been expressed, while humans create from the 'unexpressed' within." The claim that AI "relies only on what has already been expressed" and that human imagination will "always" outshine AI is presented without any evidence, examples, or acknowledgment of counter-evidence (e.g., AI systems producing outputs that surprise even their creators).

3 suggestions

Qualify the language to reflect that this is an opinion, e.g., "He expressed the view that human imagination will likely outshine AI..." instead of stating it as a definitive fact.

Add a brief note that this is a contested area, e.g., "Some AI researchers, however, argue that advanced models can generate outputs that appear novel or creative."

If available, reference any studies or expert commentary that either support or challenge Joshi’s position, making clear which evidence aligns with which claim.

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex issue to a simple, one-dimensional explanation that omits important nuances.

The description of AI and creativity is simplified to a binary contrast: - "machines rely only on what has already been expressed, while humans create from the 'unexpressed' within." - "AI is built on real data and human experiences, processed into different permutations and combinations." This frames AI as merely shuffling existing data and humans as uniquely accessing an "unexpressed" realm, without acknowledging that human creativity also recombines prior experiences and that AI models can generate highly original-seeming outputs. It also reduces AI to "permutations and combinations," which is technically and conceptually incomplete.

3 suggestions

Add nuance to the description of AI, e.g., "Joshi characterized AI as systems that learn from large datasets and generate new outputs by recombining patterns in that data," and note that this is a simplification.

Clarify that both human and machine creativity involve working from prior inputs, while highlighting the philosophical debate about what counts as "unexpressed" or genuinely novel.

Include a sentence acknowledging complexity, such as: "Experts note that both human and machine creativity are complex phenomena, and there is ongoing debate about how similar or different they are."

Appeal to authority

Using the status or position of a person as implicit support for the correctness of their claims, rather than providing evidence.

The article foregrounds Joshi’s titles: - "CBFC Chairman and lyricist Prasoon Joshi shared his views on artificial intelligence and creativity." By emphasizing his role as CBFC Chairman and a well-known lyricist, the piece may implicitly lend extra weight to his views on AI, even though these roles do not make him an expert in AI research or computer science. No AI experts are cited to support or contextualize his claims.

3 suggestions

Explicitly frame his comments as a personal or artistic perspective, e.g., "Speaking from his experience as a lyricist and creative professional, Joshi shared his views..."

Add a clarifying line that he is not an AI researcher, and that his remarks reflect a creative and philosophical viewpoint rather than technical consensus.

Balance his authority with that of AI experts by including a brief counter-quote or reference from someone with recognized expertise in AI.