What AI does is aggregate its training data and predict next responses based on training. As a result, it's choices on what to keep and what to exclude from the language would be coloured by the bias of the training data, a bias we have seen has ideological motivations, even if unintended.
It is an illusion to think of AI as we know them today as being without bias and without ideology.
Furthermore, the English language's place as the de-facto international language of the western world is a matter of both historical relevance (the influence of the late British Empire) and convenience. A newly constructed language, even one made purposefully to that end by AI, would be neither historically relevant nor convenient. This is much the same issue that Esperanto, humanity's attempt at a new lingua franca, ran into. Esperanto is easy to learn and easy to speak, and yet it is neither historically relevant nor convenient to learn and use, and as such is relegated, like most other conlangs, to relative obscurity and niche uses.
If you want to talk science, I suggest picking up some linguistics, which is a hardcore science even if most people don't think of it as such. I would recommend starting with Saussure's lectures, and then studying some of Noam Chomsky's early work, and from there the world is your oyster. It is a legitimately incredible field and it saddens me a bit that it gets understudied, specially in today's world where communication is so important, perhaps more than it has ever been before.