Should we create a constitution for governing AI?
Positions compiled by: Analysts at The Society LibraryLast Updated: Mon May 20 2024
•
Position: We should create a global framework similar to a constitution that governs the development and use of AI, to ensure ethical standards and prevent harm because of economic, health, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, environmental, legal, AI alignment and safety related, game theoretic, other governance-related, democratic, and human rights-related reasons.•
Position: Each nation should develop its own set of regulations for AI to respect cultural differences and national sovereignty because of economic, health, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, legal, AI alignment and safety related, game theoretic, other governance-related, democratic, and human rights-related reasons.•
Position: The tech industry should self-regulate AI development through voluntary guidelines, as government regulations tend to lag behind technological advancements because of economic, health, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, legal, AI alignment and safety related, game theoretic, democratic, and human rights-related reasons.•
Position: We should not create a constitution for AI, because it would stifle innovation and be impractical to enforce because of economic, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, legal, AI alignment and safety related, game theoretic, other governance-related, and human rights-related reasons.•
Position: AI development should be guided by a set of international non-binding principles rather than a rigid constitution, to allow for flexibility and adaptation to new advancements because of economic, health, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, legal, AI alignment and safety related, game theoretic, other governance-related, democratic, and human rights-related reasons.•
Position: A constitution for governing AI should only be established if it can keep pace with rapid technological innovation without being frequently outdated because of economic, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, legal, AI alignment and safety related, other governance-related, democratic, and human rights-related reasons.•
Position: The focus should be on a sector-specific regulation approach given the varying impact and use-cases of AI in different industries because of economic, health, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, legal, AI alignment and safety related, game theoretic, other governance-related, democratic, and human rights-related reasons.•
Position: There should be a constitution for AI, but its creation and governance should be the responsibility of an independent, international body of experts and stakeholders in AI ethics because of economic, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, legal, AI alignment and safety related, game theoretic, other governance-related, democratic, and human rights-related reasons.•
Position: Collaborative efforts between governments, international organizations, tech companies, and civil society should be the ones to build and refine a set of rules governing AI, reflecting a multi-stakeholder approach because of economic, health, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, legal, AI alignment and safety related, game theoretic, other governance-related, democratic, and human rights-related reasons.•
Position: We should prioritize enhancing general education and awareness about AI rather than establishing a constitution, as an informed public can better navigate and push for responsible AI because of economic, health, societal, safety, ethical, political, philosophical, legal, AI alignment and safety related, other governance-related, democratic, and human rights-related reasons.