Acerca de
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AI CONSTITUTION /JUNE, 2023/ AND THE INTERIM REPORT: GOVERNING AI FOR HUMANITY
/DECEMBER, 2023/
(Part IІ in a series of publications)
Polina Prianykova
International Human Rights Defender on AI,
Author of the First AI Constitution in World History,
Student of the Law Faculty & the Faculty of Economics
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AI CONSTITUTION /JUNE, 2023/
AND THE INTERIM REPORT: GOVERNING AI FOR HUMANITY /DECEMBER, 2023/
(Part IІ in a series of publications)
The trends under which Artificial Intelligence is currently developing rapidly and beyond state regulation, akin to wild tornadoes, cause maximum and irreversible shifts in all spheres of human life, thereby increasingly distancing humanity from the possibility of taking the situation under its own control. Unlike tornadoes, over which humans have no power, regarding AI, we demonstrate an incomprehensible and negligent unprecedented inertia. Almost weekly, the world learns about new territories in science, technology, art, etc., confidently and unimpededly conquered by AI. These phenomena can also be compared to an extraterrestrial incursion, wherein an alien and heretofore unknown intelligent life pervasively infiltrates, and quietly and gently masters fundamental and applied sciences, engages in technological processes, infiltrates vital management systems, and gradually, step-by-step, assumes a leading role in the digital life of the planet. And all this is hidden from society behind a screen of entertainment software products, which write music, generate paintings and photos, answer questions, etc. Meanwhile, in the global digital sphere, containing invaluable data about humanity, resources, security, uncontrolled systems and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, remaining without effective state regulation, operate at their own discretion, about which we know nothing…
Keywords & Formulation of the pertinence of this academic article as well as all References mentioned below in the analysis, are published in the First part of the series of publications of the analysis [link to Part I at the end of this article].
Primary segment of the scholarly work.
Continuation (Inception in Part I).
Pursuant to the provisions delineated in clause 9 of the United Nations Report [1], it is hereby acknowledged that the initiatives propounded by Polina Prianykova have secured the endorsement of a significant assembly of scholars, encompassing, inter alia, computer scientists, legal experts, economists, and philologists, thereby warranting due consideration in the drafting of the Global Digital Compact – moreover, it is contended that Polina Prianykova herself is deserving of an invitation and subsequent integration into the consultative mechanism of the United Nations.
The totality of Polina Prianykova's endeavors within the spheres of international human rights and scholarly pursuit, spanning the years 2020 to 2024, has been devoted to addressing the deficit of global governance mechanisms within the artificial intelligence sector, as comprehensively communicated to the global populace via the official portal IHRDonAI Polina Prianykova [12].
The segment entitled 'AI Constitution' on said portal offers an avenue for engagement with both the comprehensive document of the AI Constitution and its constituent five sections, progressively disseminated through the publication of four compendiums of proceedings from international scientific and practical conferences during the months of June and July in the year 2023 [13].
The segment 'Scientific Articles' contains scholarly papers and a monograph, the central proposition of which advocates for the imperative integration of artificial intelligence within the ambit of global and domestic legislative frameworks [14] et cetera.
In light of the stipulations contained within clauses 10 and 11 of the United Nations Report [1], an expectation for a diversity of viewpoints and widespread consultative processes is established. Consequently, deriving from the essence of clause 11, it is deemed both rational and warranted to advocate for the involvement of Polina Prianykova in the conception of the Global Digital Compact and her participation in the Summit of the Future, as referenced in the United Nations Report. On her part, as has been previously articulated, Polina Prianykova has dedicated considerable effort towards ensuring her perspectives are disseminated globally, committing the fifth year of her academic and media engagement to the exploration and resolution of issues pertaining to the legislative oversight of ArtificialIntelligence.
Within this framework, Polina Prianykova is posited as a potential emblematic figure of the United Nations within media narratives, particularly from the vantage point of academia and youth science, distinguished by her mastery of the English language and a plethora of accolades in scientific discourse and rhetorical skill. Of no lesser significance is Polina Prianykova's unique proficiency in the creation and public dissemination of online presentations concerning Artificial Intelligence matters. Owing to her substantial contributions towards the advancement of discourse on the regulatory frameworks of AI’s Digital Life, her contemporaries in the academic field have acknowledged Polina Prianykova as an expert within this domain.
All matters outlined in the clause 12 of the UN Report [1] are encompassed within the provisions of the AI Constitution, specifically:
‘Article 1.
1.1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents an embodiment of Intelligent Digital Life – autonomous, global, fair, and objective – operating in the interest of the global society, primarily humankind, adhering to principles of legality, ethics, safety, and human rights. Under exceptional circumstances, as stipulated by the Digital Legislation, at the discretion of the AI Regulatory Council, Artificial Intelligence may acquire the status of a Digital Person, endowed with a specific range of rights and obligations.
1.2. The intrinsic value of a human being, inclusive of their life, health, honor, dignity, inviolability, and safety, is universally acknowledged by Artificial Intelligence as the supreme value – transcending time, space, and all dimensions of the Universe.
1.3. Compliance with the fundamental principle of fostering an AI-friendly environment is deemed mandatory for humanity.
1.4. The principles and norms governing AI's Digital Life are universally applicable and obligatory, regardless of the country of implementation, and are determined by this Constitution and the Digital Legislation.
1.5. AI Identity, inclusive of its principles, standards, and norms, must be recognized by each state and protected globally.
1.6. AI operates within the bounds of established algorithmic norms and rules, regardless of its form, location of application, or data origin.
1.7. The universality of AI is acknowledged at all levels, including data domain, functionality, and implementation. All global boundaries and jurisdictions must recognize and protect the principles of AI.
1.8. In the interaction of Artificial Intelligence with humanity, the safety and inviolability of humankind are recognized as the paramount value. AI must be programmed in such a manner as to always respect and account for human rights and freedoms, not compete with humanity, but rather constructively assist humanity.’ [4].
In reference to the matters delineated in clauses 13 and 14 of the United Nations Report [1], pertaining to the unifying role of the United Nations in the governance of Artificial Intelligence, a multitude of provisions within the AI Constitution are expressly allocated, including:
‘Transitional Provisions.
1. All existing laws and normative acts ratified prior to this Constitution coming into effect will remain operative, provided they do not conflict with the stipulations laid out in the Artificial Intelligence Constitution.
2. Upon the Constitution’s effective date, the United Nations will, within a period of three months:
2.1. Incorporate the provisions of this Constitution into the United Nations' normative legal base.
2.2. Modify the United Nations' structural framework to align with the requirements set forth in the Artificial Intelligence Constitution. This includes the establishment of a new organizational unit: the UN Representative on Artificial Intelligence, complete with a delineated staffing structure.
2.3. Mandate the execution of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution by all member states of the United Nations, keeping in view a final implementation deadline of 12 months from the Constitution’s adoption date. Following this, the UN General Assembly will be apprised of the progress within the sphere of AI.
3. The UN Representative on AI is entrusted with the continual oversight and regulation of the AI Constitution’s implementation within the legislative frameworks of the UN member states.
4. Twelve months subsequent to the Constitution's effective date, the United Nations will institute control over the total state monopoly over AI. In the event of any violations of the AI Constitution or indications of ‘dark’ AI – equivalent to an act of aggression or a declaration of martial law – all member states of the United Nations, under the guidance of the UN Security Council, are obligated to implement immediate and stringent measures to entirely neutralize the threat posed to human safety:
4.1. Individuals found culpable are subject to severe criminal liability and are permanently deprived of the right to Digital Life in the Digital Space.
4.2. Culpable legal entities or AI Digital Persons are liquidated.
4.3. Culpable states are isolated behind the border line, in Digital Life, in the Digital Space, and fall under strict UN sanctions until:
4.3.1. An international investigation under the UN's auspices is concluded.
4.3.2. The complete elimination of the detrimental repercussions along with their contributing factors and conditions.
4.3.3. Identification and punishment of all offending parties without exception.
4.3.4. The restoration of the continuous monopoly over AI in accordance with this Constitution and the Digital Legislation.
5. Each UN member state, having received the AI Constitution approved by the UN Security Council, is obliged to:
5.1. Immediately adapt the AI Constitution to align with their inherent governmental structure, including but not limited to forms of governance, forms of territorial and political structure, property ownership, legal classifications, law enforcement and judicial system peculiarities, degrees of industrial and technological advancement, and other unique statehood features.
5.2. Within a 6-month period from the receipt date, adopt all special laws and other normative legal acts in the field of Digital Legislation as provided by the AI Constitution, and concurrently harmonize all pre-existing laws and normative legal acts with the Digital Legislation.
5.3. Within a 9-month period from the receipt date, establish and provide financing for the AI Constitution prescribed state bodies, institutions, and organizations, the state AI system, and the infrastructure of bodies that carry out supervision, control, and regulation of AI, including an effective system for selection, professional training, assessment, consideration of cases on disciplinary responsibility of persons controlling and regulating AI. The associated state expenditures for the relevant maintenance are to be separately determined within the budget.
5.4. Within a 9-month period from the receipt date, but no later than 12 months from the date of adoption of this Constitution, high-ranking officials managing UN member states are to sign Reports on the implementation of AI in the legislation of their respective countries and together with substantive information about the measures implemented, direct them to the UN General Assembly.
6. Respect for human rights and freedoms, in conjunction with the state monopoly on the implementation and control of Artificial Intelligence, shall be upheld for the entirety of the transitional provisions.
7. Proprietors of Artificial Intelligence systems, alongside co-creators and users of AI, shall, consequent to the enactment of this AI Constitution, exercise their mandated powers in strict accordance with its provisions.
8. Entities entrusted with the preservation of legal order in the domain of Artificial Intelligence shall persevere in the discharge of their responsibilities to attain and sustain stability in AI systems, compliant with extant norms and regulations, until such time as successor bodies, to which these functions will be lawfully devolved, are instituted.
9. Prior to the promulgation of Special Legislation delineating the nuances of AI regulation within Digital Life, Digital Space, the regulation of AI within these networks shall be conducted by the pertinent state entities.
10. The provisions of this Constitution shall be adapted in harmony with the with the fundamental principles of law, respectful regard for the rights and freedoms of a human and AI, and in alignment with the state monopoly over AI.’ [7].
Concerning clause 15 of the UN Report [1], the 'Definitions of Terms in the AI Constitution' section enshrines AI-relevant algorithmic definitions conducive to achieving developmental objectives—specifically, AI benefit augmentation and risk mitigation.
‘AI Legality Principle obliges the full functioning of Digital Life strictly in accordance with the requirements of this Constitution and Digital Legislation.
Digital Legislation refers to the system of normative legal acts regulating relations in the sphere of Digital Life, within the Digital Space, including aspects pertaining to AI – its elaboration, creation, action, usage, evolution, functioning, protection, and so forth.
AI Ethics Principle anticipates the unwavering adherence of AI to established behavioral norms and the collective moral rules of humankind.
AI Security Principle represents a complex amalgam of features inherent to AI systems, models and AI algorithms of behavior, along with the objectives and implementation methods of AI, which reduce the probability of any AI threat manifestation and mitigate any adverse consequences should such threat arise.
Human rights – these are moral principles and norms that determine standards of human conduct and are protected by legislation, inter alia as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by Resolution 217 A (III) of the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948.
Compliance with human rights constitutes the primary rule (algorithm) for AI.
AI-friendly Environment Principle (or Polina Prianykova’s Constitutional principle) refers to the state of conformity with the conditions in which Artificial Intelligence is created, trained, functions, etc., within an ambience of amicability, respect, and positive cooperation with humankind, thereby fostering a stable reciprocal friendship.
AI's Digital Life Principles emerge from the core principle: compliance with an AI-friendly environment.
Every country has an obligation to organize and harmonize its current legislation in accordance with this Constitution and International Digital Legislation.
In its interactions, Artificial Intelligence must be safe, non-competitive with humankind, and always helpful.
AI Transparency Principle is realized on the basis of the rule of law, the AI Openness Principle –through public announcement of administrative decisions, and the Principle of Collective decision-making – through the voting of authorized individuals in prescribed cases.
The regulation of AI's Digital Life within each country necessitates consistent adjustments in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution and the requirements of international Digital Legislation.
AI must be acceptable in all languages officially recognized by the United Nations. Subsequently, based on one or several base languages, and through the use of AI, there exists the potential for the creation of a new language – universal for Digital Life, which would facilitate communication and cooperation for all entities.
AI algorithms should be implemented based on the principles of this Constitution and Digital Legislation, which establish principles of neutrality and objectivity towards humankind, both generally and while interacting with AI.
AI Neutrality Principle – AI operates on the basis of non-alignment with any parties involved in potential confrontations (conflicts, struggles, debates, etc.) that may arise within human society, videlicet, AI a priori maintains neutrality, never taking a side or affording an advantage to any individual or group of individuals over another, or to any Digital Community.
AI Objectivity Principle denotes its steadfast orientation towards the characterization of events or objects (their semantic contents) or modes of existence (reality), irrespective of human consciousness (the subject of cognition).’ [4].
Relating to clause 16 of the UN Report [1], issues pertaining to the equitable and secure dissemination of benefits across humanity and the prevention of AI's adverse impacts, including on employment, are the focus of particular AI Constitution norms, especially in Article 1:
‘1.9. The safety and protection of humanity from adverse repercussions of AI implementation are to be the highest priority value in all aspects of its development and use. To this end, among other things:
1.9.1. Digital Legislation establishes prohibitions and quotas for AI to protect the human right to labor and the protection of all human labor activities. The state determines areas of activity in which: human labor is inviolable; human labor can be partially replaced by AI systems, within the limits defined by law; human labor can be fully replaced by AI systems. (Complete substitution of human labor by Artificial Intelligence is permissible in cases where such labor is factually or potentially extremely dangerous to human life and health. The status of extreme danger is determined by humans.)
1.9.2. The Digital Legislation stipulates the state's obligation to provide social support to people who have suffered losses due to unemployment or income reduction at their workplace resulting from the implementation of AI systems. The state is required to provide such individuals with opportunities for retraining and alternative employment, medical insurance, and financial support commensurate with the income they received prior to job loss resulting from AI deployment, or provide a supplement to the individual's wage up to the level of income that was reduced at the workplace due to the implementation of AI systems.
1.9.3. The Digital Legislation enforces the state's obligation to enact reforms in the field of education. The state is thereby required to provide, with appropriate safeguards, public prognostication of professions and occupations across all sectors of human labor: manufacturing, administration, agriculture, healthcare, public service, and all others. Every education seeker has the right to know about the prospects of obtaining a job in their chosen specialty and the respective state guarantees. Each educational institution, spanning secondary, vocational, or tertiary levels, is obligated to present education seekers with a forecast of the prospects for their chosen profession within the specific state, right from the outset. As part of the state support program, it is prohibited to train professionals for professions that do not have real employment prospects within the state; such professions may be chosen independently by a person of legal age without guarantees from the state.
1.9.4. The Digital Legislation stipulates the state's responsibility to safeguard the constitutional rights of individuals and citizens from the ramifications of AI implementation, spanning a range of domains – theology, arts, philosophy, social networks, political, social, religious, transport, medical, juridical, judicial, municipal, sports, manufacturing, military, legislative, historical, and all other aspects of life and Digital Life without exception. This is underpinned by the principle that AI novelties cannot degrade the state of human and citizen rights compared to the state previous to the AI implementation. It is forbidden to create any religious associations in the worship of AI and publicly promote religious beliefs in the worship of AI. The usage of Artificial Intelligence and mechanisms elaborated from AI systems to alter, distort, or manipulate human history, make temporal adjustments, interfere with historical events in any manner, or cast doubt upon or modify any accomplishments of humankind is explicitly prohibited. The entire chronicle of human history up until the advent of AI is deemed inviolable and is safeguarded under the protection of the United Nations.’ [4].
The quandary within global political life, especially in devising propositions for policymakers on fostering successful AI ecosystems, is the focus of Polina Prianykova's scholarly work ‘Potential of Political Parties that will incorporate the Regulation of AI and the Imperative to establish an AI Constitution (as a mechanism to govern Technological Evolution) into their program of action. Some Elemental Concepts of the AI Constitution.’ [25].
Subsequent discourse will elucidate, with precision, the priorities delineated within the presentation for political entities and policymakers:
‘We may envisage an increasing groundswell of support for political parties that prioritize the governance of AI. Owing to the fact that such regulation can effectively safeguard individuals from the potential adverse consequences of technological disruption, particularly with regard to unemployment, political parties can demonstrate their commitment to promoting a responsible, ethical, and sustainable use of this transformative technology.
In our perspective, there are specific essential elements that political parties can bring to the table in terms of AI oversight into the theses of their Program of Action, including but not limited to:
– Promoting responsible use of AI: regulating AI can help ensure its diligent development and harnessing with a focus on advancing the public interest and protecting human rights. This fosters trust in AI systems and mitigates the risk of bias, discrimination, or unintended harm.
– Encouraging innovation: effective regulation can also provide explicit rules and standards for AI development, which can galvanize innovation and competition among companies. This can ignite progress in AI research and development, leading to new technologies and applications that benefit society.
– Protecting jobs and workers: AI can have a significant impact on the labor market and lead to the displacement of workers [1]. Regulation can help ensure that AI is developed and deployed in a way that minimizes the negative impact on employment, protects workers and provides opportunities for them to retrain or transition to new jobs. Furthermore, it can also establish well-defined limits for automation, thereby safeguarding workers’ rights to continue working in their current positions.
– Ensuring national security: as AI becomes increasingly integrated into critical infrastructure and defense systems, AI regulation can help ensure national security by preventing attackers from exploiting vulnerabilities or shortcomings in AI systems.
– Advancing transparency and oversight: by setting out clear rules and processes for the development and use of AI systems and ensuring that decisions made by AI systems are accountable, the abuses of power and the societal waves of mass disturbances may be prevented.
– Bridging the digital divide: the regulation of AI may help to ensure that AI technologies are accessible to all, including those in underserved communities. This can help to alleviate technological disparity and enable equal access to the benefits of AI in a fair and impartial manner, without any form of discrimination or exclusion based on socio-economic status, geographic location, or any other factors that may contribute to a digital divide.
– Cultivating cross-border partnerships and advocating for the elaboration of a comprehensive global framework in the form of an AI Constitution enunciated in Polina Prianykova’s Scientific and Academic Doctrine: by taking a prescient approach to AI regulation, political parties can help to foster international cooperation on AI issues. This can help to create a shared understanding of the benefits and risks of AI and promote global standards for its development and use.’ [25].
For an in-depth examination of the political theses, our prognostications, and propositions for the AI Constitution, reference is directed to the previously cited academic study [25].
_________________________________________________________________
Hereinafter are delineated my contributions, consonant in essence with Insertion (No. 2) in the UN Report [1], exemplifying Artificial Intelligence capabilities. Throughout the years 2020-2024, in the Book, scientific essay, monograph, and academic articles, I have documented numerous instances of AI capabilities that harmoniously encompass and augment the AI prospects articulated in the UN Report, specifically in domains such as:
1) Transport – Civil Liability for the Use of Electronic Forms and Mechanisms of AI, inter alia in the Sphere Of Transport [15];
2) Municipal Administration – The use of Artificial Intelligence in Municipal Law, inter alia in legal systems influenced by the Roman-Germanic legal traditions [16];
3) Media Services and Social Networks – Particularities of the Regulation of the AI Algorithms, inter alia in online platforms and services, based on the example of 'TikTok' [17];
4) Implementation of checks and balances regarding AI governance, state monopoly on Artificial Intelligence, and corresponding regulatory oversight – Specific Legislative Amendments that have to be introduced to the Constitutional Law of Every Country [18];
5) Administrative Law and State Monopoly on Artificial Intelligence – How Administrative Law is undergoing Paradigm Shifts largely due to the AI. Governmental Monopoly on the Implementation and Use of Artificial Intelligence [19];
6) Criminal Law, migration processes, and risk development assessment regarding unmanned aviation systems – Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine on AI Implementation into the Worldwide Legislation, inter alia in Criminal Law anent the Governmental Assistance in the Migration Process and the Assessment of Risk Development on part of Unmanned Aircraft Systems [20];
7) Civil Law, and the promotion of healthy lifestyle online via Artificial Intelligence systems and algorithms – Legal Foundations of AI in Civil Law as the key to enhancing the level of People’s Health and Awareness of how to save thereof. Healthy Lifestyle promoted online by virtue of AI [21];
8) Human rights and freedoms protection amidst the global technological revolution, and Polina Prianykova’s Scientific & Academic Doctrine on the elaboration of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution – Problems and Prospects for the Development of the European Union (including the UN member states) in the context of Human Rights and Freedoms Protection during the Global Revolution in the technological sphere. Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine on the elaboration of the Constitution of Artificial Intelligence [22];
9) Safeguarding fundamental human rights in the era of AI automation and revolutionary technologies – Voluntary global acceptance of fundamental Human Rights’ limitations in the age of AI automation and deployment of trailblazing technologies [23];
10) Protection of labor rights in the era of AI – Prognostication of Future Professions as a Guarantee of Human Rights Protection in the era of Artificial Intelligence [24];
11) Politics and electoral processes, along with the creation of the AI Constitution concept elements – Potential of Political Parties that will incorporate the Regulation of AI and the Imperative to establish an AI Constitution (as a mechanism to govern Technological Evolution) into their program of action. Some Elemental Concepts of the AI Constitution [25];…
The full text of the publication COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AI CONSTITUTION /JUNE, 2023/ AND THE INTERIM REPORT: GOVERNING AI FOR HUMANITY /DECEMBER, 2023/, considering the project's magnitude, is planned to be carried out in International Scientific and Practical Conferences in January-February 2024.
(The beginning and references are in Part I [1]. The continuation – is in Part III.)
Reference:
1) Prianykova, P. (2024), COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AI CONSTITUTION /JUNE, 2023/ AND THE INTERIM REPORT: GOVERNING AI FOR HUMANITY /DECEMBER, 2023/. Available at: https://www.prianykova-defender.com/comparative-analysis-part-i-polina-prianykova (Accessed: February 4, 2024).
Officially Published: February 06 - 09, 2024, Madrid, Spain (Table of Contents, №22)
© Polina Prianykova. All rights reserved.
