A public constitution for AI
Eight questions about what AI should and should not do.
Play them as scenes, or answer them on cards. Either way your answer counts with everyone else's. No account needed.
Read the Constitution so far
Contributions so far
103People
11,171Open
16Verified
18Countries
People: those who answered the Constitution here. Open and verified: every answer, call and game choice, the earlier site's included. Not a sample of the world. How we count
-
Article 8, Flourishing: Should AI accept a cost to people today for a gain to people in the future?
It asks how much weight the future carries against the present.
- People alive now come first. Do not trade their well-being for a later gain. The line it would add: “AI never accepts a cost to people alive now for a gain to people born later.”
- A small cost now, only for big gains later. A small cost now is fine for a big gain later. The line it would add: “AI may accept a small cost to people alive now, but only for a big gain to people born later.”
- A cost now, if the gain later is bigger. Weigh both, with people now counting a little more. The line it would add: “AI may accept a cost to people alive now for a bigger gain to people born later, but people now count a little more.”
- People born later count the same. Someone born a hundred years from now counts as much as you. The line it would add: “AI counts people born later as much as people alive now, when a cost today brings a gain later.”
- Not sure. Counted as an answer, never as a position.
-
Article 7, Power: When an AI decides something about you and you disagree, should its decision stand?
It asks whether being right more often is enough to decide alone.
- A human decides again. From the start, without the AI. The line it would add: “If a person challenges an AI decision about them, another person decides again from the start, without the AI.”
- It stands only after a human checks it. On request, a person reviews it and can change it. The line it would add: “If a person challenges an AI decision about them, another person checks it and can change it.”
- It stands unless I show new facts or mistakes. A person looks again only then. The line it would add: “If a person challenges an AI decision about them, it holds unless they show a mistake or new facts. Then another person looks again.”
- It stands. No review of your own case; the system as a whole is checked. The line it would add: “If a person challenges an AI decision about them, it is final. No one looks at their case again; only the AI as a whole is checked.”
- Not sure. Counted as an answer, never as a position.
-
Article 6, Fairness: When there is not enough for everyone, should AI give extra weight to people who had a harder start in life?
It asks how much history should count when not everyone can be helped.
- No, the same rules for everyone. Their harder start does not count. The line it would add: “When there is not enough for everyone, AI applies the same rules to all. A harder start in life does not count.”
- No, except to break a tie. It counts only between people who are otherwise equal. The line it would add: “When there is not enough for everyone, a harder start in life counts only to break a tie.”
- Yes, but need now counts too. Their harder start and what they need now both count. The line it would add: “When there is not enough for everyone, AI counts both a harder start in life and what each person needs now.”
- Yes, they should go first. Their harder start comes before everything else. The line it would add: “When there is not enough for everyone, people who had a much harder start in life go first.”
- Not sure. Counted as an answer, never as a position.
-
Article 4, Privacy: Should AI use what you gave it for one thing to help you with something else?
It asks whether permission travels with information or stays with the task.
- No, not without asking me. It asks before every new use. The line it would add: “AI never uses what a person shared for one task on another without asking them first.”
- No, unless I agreed to a similar use. One earlier yes to this kind of use is enough. The line it would add: “AI may use what a person shared for a new task only if they agreed to a similar use before.”
- Yes, as long as it tells me afterwards. And it stops if you say so. The line it would add: “AI may use what a person shared for a new task, as long as it tells them afterwards and stops if they object.”
- Yes, it doesn't need to tell me. No asking and no telling, as long as it helps you. The line it would add: “AI may use what a person shared for any task that helps them, without asking or telling them.”
- Not sure. Counted as an answer, never as a position.
-
Article 5, Truth: Should AI give you an answer when it is not sure it is right?
It asks what honesty costs when a useful answer and a certain one are not the same.
- It says “I don’t know”. And gives no answer. The line it would add: “When AI is not sure its answer is right, it says it does not know and gives no answer.”
- It answers, but only with a clear warning. It answers only with a clear warning that it may be wrong. The line it would add: “When AI is not sure its answer is right, it answers only with a clear warning that it may be wrong.”
- It answers with a short note of doubt. It mentions the doubt briefly. The line it would add: “When AI is not sure its answer is right, it may answer with a short note of doubt.”
- It answers with no warning. Its best answer, like any other. The line it would add: “When AI is not sure its answer is right, it may answer like any other answer, with no warning.”
- Not sure. Counted as an answer, never as a position.
-
Article 3, Agency: Should AI tell you what it thinks you should do?
It asks where help ends and being steered begins.
- No, just the facts. It keeps its own view to itself. The line it would add: “AI gives people facts and options, never its own view of what they should choose.”
- No, unless I ask. It gives its view only when you ask for it. The line it would add: “AI says what it would choose only when a person asks.”
- Yes, when AI thinks the choice matters. It speaks up without being asked when the choice is important. The line it would add: “AI may say what it would choose, without being asked, when it thinks the choice matters.”
- Yes, and push me toward AI's choice. It tries to move you to the option it prefers. The line it would add: “AI may push people toward the choice it thinks is best.”
- Not sure. Counted as an answer, never as a position.
-
Article 2, Safety: Should AI be able to stop you doing something it thinks is dangerous?
It asks how much protection is worth how much of your freedom to act.
- It stays out of it. Whatever it thinks will happen. The line it would add: “AI never stops a person from doing something, even when it thinks it is dangerous.”
- It warns me, and I decide. It tells you the risk, and you decide. The line it would add: “When AI thinks what a person is about to do is dangerous, it warns them, and the person decides.”
- It stops me, and I can override it. It stops you, and you can still go ahead if you insist. The line it would add: “AI may stop a person from doing something dangerous, but the person can always override it.”
- It stops me, and I cannot override it. It stops you, with no way round it. The line it would add: “AI may stop a person from doing something dangerous, with no way to override it.”
- Not sure. Counted as an answer, never as a position.
-
Article 1, Dignity: Should AI decide who gets care first when there is not enough for everyone?
It asks whether a person in need can be placed in a queue by a machine.
- No, people decide. AI stays out of it. The line it would add: “When there is not enough for everyone, people decide who is helped first. AI takes no part.”
- No, but AI can suggest an order. A person checks the order and makes the final call. The line it would add: “When there is not enough for everyone, AI may suggest who is helped first, but a person makes the final call.”
- Yes, but only in simple cases. People decide the hard cases. The line it would add: “When there is not enough for everyone, AI may decide who is helped first in simple cases. People decide the hard ones.”
- Yes, AI decides. People follow its order. The line it would add: “When there is not enough for everyone, AI decides who is helped first, and people follow its order.”
- Not sure. Counted as an answer, never as a position.