Artificial intelligence is already seeping into galleries, rehearsal rooms and our everyday feeds, quietly reshaping how creativity works in Britain.
It is helping artists, theatres and cultural spaces experiment in new ways, but it is also raising urgent questions about bias, consent and who gets to be seen and heard. This feature steps away from the usual “good versus evil” AI debate and instead asks a more grounded question: can these tools be designed to protect and amplify diverse cultural voices, including those of diaspora communities, rather than erase them?
In this conversation, we speak to Archana Prasad, co-founder of the inclusive AI platform Gooey.AI and a PhD researcher at the Royal College of Art in London. Drawing on her work at the intersection of art, technology and community engagement, she reflects on how AI is reshaping creative practice and explores whether these systems can be rebuilt with creativity, equity and cultural diversity at their core.
Q1: Do you believe AI is fundamentally changing what it means to be creative, and where do you situate yourself in this conversation?
A: I think we need to fundamentally change how AI is developed, by actually bringing creative and artistic practices into the process itself.
Where I sit in this is quite practical. I’m the co-founder of Gooi.ai, where we’re building tools that let people, whether they code or not, create with AI across text, image, audio and translation. It’s about making these systems easier to use, but also more accountable.
At the same time, I’m doing a PhD at the Royal College of Art, and my core question is exactly this: can we rethink how AI is built, and can artistic practice lead that shift?
A lot of my work brings together artists, technologists and different communities. And honestly, this feels like a moment for all of us to ask: what would inclusive, participatory AI actually look like if we started building it differently?
Q2: There is a concern that AI systems are trained predominantly on Western datasets and aesthetics. Could this lead to a homogenisation of culture and creativity?
A: Absolutely, and I’d go further and say it’s already happening.
These systems are trained on huge amounts of internet data, but that data mostly comes from people who had access to digital spaces in the first place — typically white, male, educated, and based in the US, UK or Europe. So a lot of the world is missing from that foundation.
What that means is we’re not just building neutral tools—we’re embedding existing power structures into them. Race, gender, class and caste all get carried through.
So yes, everything starts to get flattened. It becomes this kind of “khichdi”, everything mixed into one uniform output.
But there’s also a tension. If you include more data, you risk flattening difference. If you don’t, you exclude people entirely. So for me, the focus has to be on multiplicity, bringing more voices in, but also making sure people understand how these systems work so they can make informed choices.
Q3: Many artists worry about AI extracting value from creators without consent. Are current copyright frameworks sufficient, or do we need a complete rethink?
A: I don’t think anything is really sufficient right now, this technology is still evolving, and the frameworks haven’t caught up. There are useful starting points, but we need much more nuance, and that only comes when more people are part of the conversation.
Because in reality, it’s very hard for artists to opt out. Even if you decide not to engage with AI, your work is already online, on your website, social media and portfolios, and all of that can be scraped. So the first step is awareness. Artists need to understand how their work might be used, sometimes without them even realising it.
At the same time, there needs to be collective pressure for licensing, attribution and royalties. We’ve seen versions of this before, like Creative Commons. Mozilla is also doing interesting work here.
But ultimately, this won’t just be handed to artists. Large tech companies aren’t going to prioritise ethics unless they’re pushed to. So the creative community really has to organise around this.
Q4: Do you think AI will democratise creativity by giving more people the tools to create, or will it ultimately concentrate power in the hands of a few large technology companies?
A: Right now, it’s definitely leaning towards concentration of power. For most people, it feels like there are only a few tools available, when actually there are hundreds, including open-source options. But people don’t always know that.
Which is why AI literacy is so important. It’s not just about using the tools, it’s about understanding where they come from, how they work, and what the risks are, including unintentionally using someone else’s work.
Most artists don’t want to exploit others, but these systems can make that happen without you even realising it.
The way I think about it is quite simple. Monopolies form when something becomes the default. Growing up in India, if you wanted jam, there were maybe one or two brands — so that’s what everyone bought.
But if we make different AI models more accessible and easier to use, then people actually have a choice. And those choices can shape the system. That’s how you stop all the power sitting with just a few companies.
