First, most jobs are not creative. If you have a job where you are told what to do (that is most jobs) and an AI could do it for cheaper, it is a net win for your employer to fire you and run the AI themselves. Either you do the job yourself, but less efficiently, or you delegate it to the AI, in which case you are nothing more than a middleman.

In order for AI to empower you, it needs to work for you and help you accomplish a goal that you set yourself. So if you have a great idea, it could in theory help you implement it without requiring a lot of resources. Well, that's the theory. The problem is a) very few people actually have good or original ideas; b) AI will eventually have better ideas than most people; and c) most people care about their own ideas, they don't care about yours. You have a great idea about a movie. You use AI to make it and then you watch it. I have a great idea for a movie. I use AI to make it and then I watch it. Are we going to watch each other's "creation"? Sometimes, maybe. Most of the time, probably not. Ultimately, execution is worth a lot more than ideas, so if you manage to automate execution, what's left is worth peanuts.

Note that we are talking about the endgame, here. While the technology matures, it may empower a lot of individuals (as well as a lot of corporations). The point is that it is an unstable equilibrium and there may come a point where some people have literally nothing of value to offer because AI is better than them at everything. And then there may come a point where that is true of every human.