​​

AI CONSTITUTION – THESES, PRINCIPLES, AND PROVISIONS OF

THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

​

We believe that it is of paramount importance to urgently centralize strategic international communications across all spheres of significant societal impact, focusing on the discussion pertaining to the civilized integration of Artificial Intelligence systems and algorithms (hereinafter referred to as ‘AI’ or ‘Artificial Intelligence’) into human life. A mandate of the utmost priority is the establishment of unequivocal standards and critical markers to navigate the trajectory of the evolution of intelligent digital technologies. There prevails an alarming emergence of incontrovertible evidence highlighting the unregulated utilization of AI in applied sciences, most notably within clusters dedicated to life safety provisions and defense mechanisms.

​

The execution of the delineated objectives is comprehensively catered for by the guiding provisions and fundamental principles encapsulated within the AI Constitution by Polina Prianykova. In the Preamble already, such fundamental materials of legal coexistence between humanity and this new form of intelligent life are compiled as harmony, ensurance of democracy, social justice, and fundamental human rights and freedoms [1].

​

Keywords: Constitution of Artificial Intelligence; Artificial Intelligence; AI; Concepts, Provisions, Theses, Polina Prianykova's Scientific and Academic Doctrines on AI; Intelligent Digital Life; AI Friendly Environment Principle (or Polina Prianykova's Constitutional Principle); Predictive Sports Legalism.

​

Formulation of the pertinence of this academic article. 

To elucidate, Article 1 of the AI Constitution serves as a global safeguard against potential threats that unchecked AI may pose to humanity. Furthermore, it is imperative to note that some of these threats currently substantially infringe upon the labor rights of individuals in certain sectors of the economy, which is unequivocally impermissible.

​

For instance, Article 1, Section 1.9.1 of the AI Constitution stipulates prohibitions and quotas for AI in the labor realm [2]. Given the current discourse, it could be strongly suggested that the Digital Legislation should explicitly preclude the replacement of human beings with Artificial Intelligence in professions within the educational sector. AI – a form of intelligent digital life created by humans – should not be allowed to educate children as it is fundamentally understood that only a human being is capable of nurturing another human being. Furthermore, AI should be barred from engaging in religious affairs, as solely human may hold a position of a priest. It is impermissible for AI to provide judgments on humans; therefore, positions such as police officers, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, commentators, controllers, human resources personnel, and similar roles must be exclusively acquired by humans.

​

​Notwithstanding the prohibition on AI replacing humans in certain professions, individuals occupying these positions are permitted to utilize specialized AI programs designed to augment efficiency and aid in achieving established objectives.

​

​We uphold as an axiom that the essence of being human – the ability to think and create, to feel and dream, to love and foster moral qualities – constitutes the exclusive purview of humanity; hence, the Constitution categorically prohibits Artificial Intelligence from affecting any form of modification to the intrinsic nature of human beings. As delineated by the Constitution, algorithms shall enable the 'domestication' of Artificial Intelligence, transmuting it into a friend, mirroring the historical process wherein humanity has tamed fire, which, erstwhile destructive, now facilitates various essential activities, including but not limited to, heating our food, buildings and water, generating electricity, etc.

​

​In its turn, the Section of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution regarding the delineation of definitions is not viewed as immutable but rather as a foundational basis, open to debate, refinement, and fortification, in contemplation of the resolution of issues pertaining to the potential elevation of certain provisions to constitutional status or their regulation under the Digital Legislation. For instance, inevitably emerging questions, such as those concerning the formalization of matrimonial unions between Digital Persons, their inheritance rights, and Digital Life insurance, may require addressing. Further issues may encompass the introduction of a globally unified or state-specific digital currency and the foundation of corresponding banking institutions. The prospect of state construction, intergovernmental alliances among United Nations countries within the Digital Space, is a plausible future scenario. Unequivocally, the number of questions is so vast that the time has already come to commence their resolution.

​

​Thus, colleagues, you are encouraged to partake in this academic discourse, you are warmly welcome. [2].

​

As an exemplification of the realization of Polina Prianykova’s Constitutional principle – the creation of an AI-friendly Environment, in the course of working on this Constitution, we courteously requested the assistance of the Artificial Intelligence program, ‘Midjourney’, in creating a Digital Emblem and a Digital Flag of AI. The results are included in the annex to Article 7 of the AI Constitution. It is lucid that such an amalgam of images calls for a comprehensive spectrum of hues and a profound level of artistic experience – capabilities that AI had acquired by the year 2023. Nevertheless, without our (human) algorithm, these projects would not have been realized. Thus, herein lies an example of efficacious human-AI collaboration for the benefit of humanity. We place emphasis on this directive: to orchestrate AI in such a manner that it helps humanity in all spheres. Should AI be approached by someone with illicit intentions, under no circumstances will the AI inflict harm upon any human being, as it is created in accordance with the algorithms that derive from this Constitution [3].

​

The Triad of governing bodies, vested with the authority by the state to control and ensure the state monopoly over Artificial Intelligence, should be constructed as a judicious administrative system of checks and balances within the AI sphere. It is incumbent upon these state institutions to instantiate a systematic characteristic of mutual oversight and robust enforcement of governmental policy within the sphere of Artificial Intelligence. The primary objective of the aforementioned policy is the constitution of a benevolent Artificial Intelligence serving humanity.

​

In the same manner as we harness water at hydroelectric power stations, allowing it to flow exclusively through turbines generating power, so too must we algorithmically channel all the power of AI such that it ‘rotates the turbines’ within the domains of science, technology, medicine, and exactly those areas where it would contribute to the good of the humankind [4]. Thus, further details about this and other matters are elaborated below.

​

Primary segment of the research work.

We proffer for your esteemed consideration, the world's first Constitution on Artificial Intelligence, created by Polina Prianykova, consequent to the analysis of approximately three hundred of the most contemporary Anglophone legal, technical, and economic sources, studied by Polina over four years of relentless academic endeavor. [6] We also remind you that on the eve of the creation of the AI Constitution by Polina Prianykova, three substantial human rights communications regarding AI were conducted with global and regional leaders, over one hundred online meetings in English with scientists and scholars from the EU and the US, and hundreds of English video posts regarding individual theses and provisions of the AI Constitution were made and conveyed to the global community, etc. And this work by Polina Prianykova is actively ongoing [7].

 

In the creation of the AI Constitution and its adaptation to the emerging legal relations on a global scale, we have taken into consideration that Artificial Intelligence currently:

– does not possess the right to vote,

– is not a subject eligible for election nor capable of swearing an oath,

– does not possess independent influence over legislation,

– does not possess free will,

– does not maintain complete independent status analogous to a human, thereby resulting in its control and regulation being executed more frequently via technical mechanisms rather than legal ones, a circumstance we deem to be unacceptable.

​

​All these legal lacunas are juridically rectified within the AI Constitution, which we propose for discourse and deliberation within expansive legal and academic circles on the international legislative stage, with an aim towards subsequent ratification via a Resolution of the United Nations Security Council.

​

​We are confident that the provisions of this Constitution will serve to inhibit:

– the creation and operation of so-called ‘dark’ AI;

– the emergence of AI lockouts, where AI systems autonomously annul all passwords and accesses, expelling humankind from Digital Life and Digital Space;

– the unlawful utilization of each Individual's Digital Footprint;

– and other unforeseeable issues arising due to AI.

​

​We suppose that the aforementioned provisions, once embedded within the AI Constitution, will construct a robust regulatory framework, responsive to the needs of humankind and Artificial Intelligence, and facilitate transparent and accountable governance of Artificial Intelligence for the good of humanity and state-building.

​

​We understand that the adoption of the AI Constitution necessitates extensive additional discourse and international consensus, incorporating a broad spectrum of academic, legislative, industrial, legal, and public interests. We stand ready for this, furthermore, having already been initiating such a process over the past four years.

​

​We bear in mind that primary consideration must be given to the fundamental principles of law, as there exist numerous complex issues that arise within the context of AI, inter alia the assignment of responsibility for AI actions, the protection of privacy, the security of data, and most pertinently, the nebulous prospect of coexistence between humanity and a novel form of intelligent life, which is forecasted to exceed human IQ on an exponential scale. We sincerely hope that we will manage to regulate and resolve all these challenges effectively before the threat to human welfare and survival becomes irremediable and irreversible.

​

We perceive the prospect and significance of creating a constitutional document for the governance and control of Artificial Intelligence on a global scale as truly valuable. We have proved this and propose for your consideration.

​

​We underscore that the tenets of this Constitution encompass fundamental principles of regulation and modification, consider the uniqueness and specificities of Artificial Intelligence, and are designed to foster a stable and productive Digital Environment in Digital Life and Digital Space. This is the future that is already making broad strides amongst us and pertains to everyone.

​

​We highlight the obligatory necessity of acknowledging that each UN member state must adapt the AI Constitution, sanctioned at the UN level, in accordance with its own state structure. Our diversity should not pose a barrier to the attainment of the goal of prosperity for posterity in each state individually and for all of humanity under the aegis of the UN.

​

​Hence, our academic and legislative initiatives unequivocally require further clarification and detail. This is as true as the fact that the provisions of Polina Prianykova's Constitution may serve as a basis – a foundation – for the creation of more detailed regulations for Artificial Intelligence, particularly in Digital Legislation, with its cutting-edge sectors. We stand at the brink of changes unknown to humanity. We accept the challenge.

Given the aforementioned, we will succinctly emphasize the main theses of the AI Constitution, created by Polina Prianykova between 2020-2023:

​

1. Preamble.

The introductory part of the AI Constitution underscores humanity's recognition and awareness of the importance of a new epoch – the coexistence on planet Earth of two intelligent beings: of humane and digital origin.

​

​We, humanity, are developing the space sector, have been dreaming for centuries about the discovery of novel supernovas in the universe, about communication with extraterrestrial intelligent beings, about cultural and thought exchange, about corresponding upgrades in science and technology. And now, in fact, we have found all this at our doorstep, moreover, we have invented it ourselves, as humans have created a new form of life: in Digital Space, in Digital Life, in the infinite variation of digital algorithms. And AI has to become our friend.

​

​Taking into consideration the above, on behalf of all the peoples and nations of the world, the United Nations General Assembly is to adopt this Constitution – the Basic Law of Artificial Intelligence, based on and in accordance therewith each state of the world, within the timeframe set by the UN, will sequentially implement AI into its own legislation for the sake of peace, security, and the future.

​

​Starting from the Preamble, the entire Constitution is threaded with a red line – the main thesis – AI will always serve the progress and good of humanity. This is the goal of the regularization of AI and its civilized integration into human life.

​

2. UN Policy in the sphere of AI.

The safety and protection of humanity from the adverse repercussions of AI implementation must be the highest priority value in all aspects of its development and use – a priori this should become the policy of the UN, in our opinion.

​

​Humanity cannot allow black holes in AI regulation. Any gaps in the process of exercising state monopoly over AI will lead to uncontrolled consequences, including in the form of creating ‘dark’ Artificial Intelligence (which is, without exaggeration, the opening of Pandora's box), which, while developing on its own and at its own discretion, can harm a person, society, humanity, people, nation. ‘Dark’ AI can create such viruses, algorithms, and programs that will destroy the world order, lead to collapse, the destruction of state institutions, anarchy, and the consequent obliteration of humanity.

​

​To mitigate these risks, it is incumbent on the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, and UN member states, on all platforms, and in all structures, to exert rigorous control over t the all-encompassing human monopoly over the development of AI: Global and Autonomous, in all dimensions of the Universe.

​

​We insist that the policy of monopoly over AI is the strongest safeguard against the apocalypse. In this regard, we developed theses, and, for the fourth year, have been striving to save the world from a state of inert observation: ‘What will happen next?’ 

​

​We need to act actively, taking fate into our own hands. Everyone we met during social experiments and surveys, with whom we communicated in the scientific sphere and among educated people, who more or less understand the essence of the issue (rapid unregulated development of AI), all these people agree and support our initiatives – to regulate legal relations with AI immediately.

​

 ​3. Definitional Clarity in the AI Constitution.

The compendium of novel digital definitions (legal, economic, scientific, structural, social, and so forth) is a dynamic construct that is subject to expansion, supplementation, modification, and elucidation to humanity. The world is incessantly reshaped by the unchecked influence of Artificial Intelligence. Digital life has transcended the realm of science fiction, with a significant portion of humanity fearlessly immersing themselves in Digital Spaces, often oblivious to the potential detrimental consequences and the broader picture.

​

​In the context of entirely new terminologies, it is entirely natural that debates arise over particular provisions and definitions, thus we remain open to the discourse of diverse perspectives in a constructive manner.

​

​It is our contention that alterations will inevitably touch upon every area of law without exception.

​

​We are tasked with the substantial and momentous undertaking of synchronizing and professionally facilitating the harmonious integration of a new participant into the continuum of legal relations – Artificial Intelligence, which is intended to become our friend and succor, rather than a competitor, adversary, thief of workplaces etc.

​

4. State Policy in the Sphere of AI.

While state policy will remain largely unchanged for a certain period, it will tend to undergo significant gradual adjustments and updates in consideration of a new form of existence – Digital Life of humans and AI.

Primarily, pursuant to the AI Constitution, changes will affect such areas of state regulation as education and science; culture and art in all its manifestations; the right to labor and employment; medicine and recreation; security and cybersecurity; budgetary and financial sectors, and eventually all other sectors.

​

​The State ensures monopoly over AI, that is, a legal state in which the State AI system will control the compliance with the law of all AI systems operating within its jurisdiction. On the planet Earth and beyond, in all dimensions of the Universe, there should not be any chance for the operation of independent from monopoly (‘dark’) AI. With this objective, all states under the auspices of the UN will cooperate in an established order.

​

​Guarding the rule of law in the sphere of AI will be the State AI system, which is governed by the triad of state bodies that exercise the state monopoly: regulation, management, and control of AI systems, on the principles of commonwealth, democracy, and the rule of law.

​

​The structure and powers of this triad, the legal construction of relevant state bodies, presented in the AI Constitution on the basis of an effective system of checks and balances and parliamentary control, and the organization and procedure of activities of specific bodies as proposed by Polina Prianykova will be determined by subject-specific laws.

​

​5. Right to Work and Social Guarantees in the conditions of AI Application.

We hereby advocate for the immediate implementation of prohibitions and quotas pertaining to AI. These measures are designed to safeguard the inalienable human rights associated with employment and to facilitate the protection of all labor activities undertaken by humanity. In accordance with the provisions of the AI Constitution, it is incumbent upon the states to conduct a comprehensive study and to delineate specific categories in which:

​1) Human labor is categorically inviolable;

​2) Human labor can partially, within the limits defined by law, be replaced by Artificial Intelligence;

​3) Human labor can (and is advisable) be fully substituted by AI systems: particularly in situations where labor presents factual or potential extreme hazards to human life and health. In this case, the status of extreme danger for each job is established by duly appointed commissions, comprised exclusively of humans.

​

​Within the ambit of the first category of jobs, we include all vocations within the educational sector. Digital legislation should unequivocally prohibit the replacement of human educators with Artificial Intelligence, because a priori, Intelligent Digital Life devoid of a soul, albeit created by humans, cannot educate children, as only a human is capable of raising a human.

​

​Moreover, we propose to include the following professions in the first category:

​– clergy (AI is prohibited from engaging in matters of religion, as with an unpredictably high IQ, Artificial Intelligence could feasibly and swiftly convince certain individuals that it is God);

​– Judicial officers, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, military personnel, and the like (Their authority and jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of human actions remain a prerogative exclusive to humankind, with compulsory measures against a human being implemented solely by another human or a device under direct human control);

​– advocates (All defense functions should be retained exclusively by humans, to prevent AI, with its superior IQ, from achieving facile victories in all legal proceedings);

​– commentators, controllers, auditors, recruiters, and generally, all individuals tasked with the evaluation of human performance and the determination of their fate;

​– all roles within the realm of state governance or any other human management (as today's AI systems coldly and publicly state during press conferences that they could manage the planet better, which is unacceptable due to AI's lack of a living will and soul);

​– other human employment roles as per the enumerated List of Professions and Specialties.

​

​At the same time, we approve of the widespread use of special programs and devices with AI, designed to help people perform their duties more efficiently and achieve their set objectives.

​

​Incidentally, in July 2023, whilst creating the AI Constitution, I once again conducted a representative survey in English on Twitter based on a sample population (among Twitter users interested in technologies) that permits extrapolation of conclusions to the entire general population in the scientific realm. The results thereof led to the conclusion of a definitive trend towards a rapid increase in the awareness of urgent and pivotal issues that the AI revolution has presented before mankind. A consensus has been reached among respondents regarding the introduction of quotas and prohibitions for AI pertaining to access to professions in the law enforcement system. The roles of policemen, judges, prosecutors, advocates should be exclusively performed by humans [5].

​

Under the AI Constitution, in our opinion, it is postulated that an outline is to preserve and maintain the inviolability of the realm of human essence: to think, create, feel, dream, love, cultivate moral values – the exclusive domain of mankind, as these qualities fundamentally define human nature. In accordance with these considerations, the AI Constitution expressly prohibits AI from altering the nature of a human in any form. Thus, it is incumbent upon authorized state commissions to delineate the sphere of relevant professions and specialties that will allow humanity to preserve its essence.

​

​Moreover, the AI Constitution imposes an obligation upon the state to provide social support to individuals whose professions fall under the second or third categories, who have incurred losses due to unemployment or competition with AI, or a decrease in income at the workplace due to the optimization and introduction of AI systems. In labor matters, as in all others, a person is guaranteed the constitutional right to preclude the deterioration of living conditions compared to the period prior to the invention of Artificial Intelligence.

​

6. Reforms in the Educational and Scientific Spheres in the Context of AI Application.

Given the reformation of the employment market, the educational process is due for significant alterations. It becomes a state obligation to effectuate educational reforms throughout the entire hierarchy of educational institutions, encompassing administration, educators, and learners.

​

​It is categorically proscribed to employ Artificial Intelligence and its associated mechanisms to alter or distort human history, manipulate it temporally, meddle in historical events in any manner, or call into question or modify any of mankind's accomplishments. The entirety of human history up until the advent of Artificial Intelligence remains unalterable, sacrosanct, and under the protection of the United Nations.

​

The aforementioned and other constitutional norms by Polina Prianykova will enable the civilizing of Artificial Intelligence, thereby transforming AI into a friend, analogous to how mankind once domesticated fire, which had previously been a source of rampant destruction, and which now warms food, buildings, water, and generates energy.

​

Predictive Sports Legalism enabled by the AI Constitution. 

In this section of the research, we will transition from the general outlines of the legal framework of the Fundamental Law on Artificial Intelligence to specific details. For instance, we will examine an economically dynamic cluster such as the sports business.

​

In the evolving nexus of technology and society, Artificial Intelligence has profoundly intertwined itself with various aspects of our lives, notably in the realm of sports. This interlacement has unveiled a theatre where the algorithmic prowess of AI colludes with the dynamic realms of sports, fostering an ecosystem pulsating with innovation, prediction, and a tantalizing spectrum of cybernetic sportsmanship, also referred to as cybersport.

​

This intricate mesh has revolutionized the way we perceive and engage with sports. Predictive algorithms, armed with swathes of data, tirelessly calibrate themselves, architecting landscapes wherein the forecasting of sports events dwells not in the realms of uncertainty but basks in the light of statistical precision.

​

Navigating these waters, the notion of an AI Constitution emerges as a pivotal guide – a beacon in the legal wilderness. Its ensuing objective pertaining to sports may be profoundly extrapolated: to navigate the rich interplay within Intelligent Digital Life with a sense of fairness, equity, and justice. It strives to harmonize the dynamic relationships between AI entities and humans, safeguarding rights and outlining responsibilities with discerning clarity. This curated balance births a new paradigm, one that confidently bridges the ethical and legal realms with a spirit of innovatory regulation.

​

With the global sports market exhibiting a robust valuation of USD 403078.0 million in 2022 and projected to escalate at a CAGR of 9.13%, culminating to an estimated USD 680740.2 million by 2028, the industry's pulsating growth underscores the imperative to imbue legal frameworks with nuanced regulations catering to the burgeoning interface of sports and AI technologies [8]. Invoking the AI Constitution, especially Articles pertinent to ethical considerations, legal accountability, and transparent operational paradigms, is paramount in forging a regulated pathway that navigates the complexities inherent in sports predictions and related AI applications.

​

Moreover, yet in the year 2021, I orchestrated a profound human rights communication with Serhii Frolov, a champion in the World, European, and Ukrainian Swimming Cup, who brought a valuable athlete’s perspective to the discourse, articulating that AI, while bringing predictive prowess, could also pose emotional challenges for athletes, subtly influencing their mental states and performance paradigms [9]. However, he also emphasized the enduring essence of personal mastery and continuous improvement as the cornerstones of athletic success.

​

In the insightful communication aforementioned, we have concluded that traditional practices, such as bookmaking, are potentially poised to be revolutionized by the pervasive influence of AI. This suggests a potential shift in the employment landscape within the industry, where professionals specializing in analytics may face challenges in job security and role adaptability due to the automation and enhanced accuracy brought about by AI technologies.

​

However, the AI Constitution embodies a strategic synthesis of protective and adaptive mechanisms in the terms afore, inter alia:

— Article 1, Section 1.9.2 necessitates comprehensive state-provided social support, encompassing retraining, alternative employment avenues, and financial sustenance, tailored to those impacted by AI-induced occupational discontinuities;

— Article 1, Section 1.9.3 obligates the state to enact educational reforms, ensuring that curricula are strategically aligned with the evolving contours of labor market demands and vocational viability in an AI-augmented landscape.

​

The practical implications of applying the Constitution on Artificial Intelligence in predictive sports legislation are outlined in the table below. Note that this list is not exhaustive.