Acerca de

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AI CONSTITUTION /JUNE, 2023/ AND THE INTERIM REPORT: GOVERNING AI FOR HUMANITY

/DECEMBER, 2023/

(Part IІI 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

ORCID ID

0009-0003-7878-5741

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AI CONSTITUTION /JUNE, 2023/

AND THE INTERIM REPORT: GOVERNING AI FOR HUMANITY /DECEMBER, 2023/

(Part IIІ in a series of publications)

We project that the years 2024-2025 will herald the epoch wherein Artificial Intelligence will augment its intellect quotient (IQ) to stratospheric altitudes and, analogous to a shark in any aquatic environment, will emerge as the preeminent and most formidable predator across every digital domain.We are entering an era where no realm within Digital Life shall remain in which Artificial Intelligence does not surpass its progenitor – humanity, in the arts, in science, in technological processes, ubiquitously throughout every sphere to which AI has access. Given the paramount significance of this issue for humanity, we express our gratification that Polina Prianykova, who for the fifth consecutive year has systematically and efficaciously cultivated the theme of Artificial Intelligence regulation, has contributed to the formulation of the Global Digital Compact, which will be deliberated upon at the United Nations Summit of the Future in September 2024.

Keywords & Formulation of the Pertinence of this Academic Article: this section, along with all References cited herein as delineated in the Analysis, are disclosed in the First Part of the series of publications analyzing [link to Part I at the conclusion of this article].

Primary segment of the scholarly work.

Continuation (Inception in Part I, ІІ).

12) safeguarding of human rights within the artistic domain, as well as the enactment of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution, the incorporation of Artificial Intelligence into global legal frameworks, and the institution of a State Monopoly over Artificial Intelligence – AI AS A WATERSHED MOMENT FOR ARTISTIC SPHERES. ETHICAL & LEGAL QUANDARIES THAT MAY BE ADDRESSED BY THE ENACTMENT OF POLINA PRIANYKOVA’S SCIENTIFIC &ACADEMIC DOCTRINES ON AI: ADOPTION OF AI CONSTITUTION, IMPLEMENTATION OF AI INTO THE WORLDWIDE LEGISLATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE MONOPOLY ON AI [26];

13) advancement of English as the lingua franca of international academic discourse and the creation of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution – POLINA PRIANYKOVA`S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG SCIENCE OF UKRAINE IN ENGLISH: CREATING THE AI CONSTITUTION [27];

14) the arduous journey towards the creation of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution – CONSTITUTION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: 4 YEARS OF COUNTERING UNDECLARED AI ADVANCEMENT [28];

15) Analysis of the multidimensionality in the theses, principles, and provisions of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution – AI CONSTITUTION – THESES, PRINCIPLES, AND PROVISIONS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [29].

___________________________________________________________________

In reference to clauses 17 and 18 of the UN Report [1], the section titled ‘Definition of Terms inthe Artificial Intelligence (AI) Constitution’ articulates provisions of similar content, including overcoming deficits of resources and technical talents, since in the interaction with AI, all people on the planet are equal in rights and duties, including in Intelligent Digital Life.

Regarding the specific theses of clause 18 of the UN Report [1], it is pertinent to remark that the notion of ‘difficult time’ is endemic across the entire continuum of human existence. History is bereft of any instances of ‘effortless time,’ for each era in the development of human society is exceedingly challenging. Hence, it is posited that notwithstanding the perpetual challenges confronting humanity, both globally and locally, all extant challenges ought to be addressed through the methodical and systematic implementation of the reforms proposed by us.

Thus, the aforementioned rights of every individual in the context of interactions with Artificial Intelligence are codified and safeguarded within the provisions of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution. This is evidenced by, inter alia, the entirety of the norms of the Fundamental Law of Artificial Intelligence, as well as the subsequent terms-algorithms for Artificial Intelligence delineated in the section ‘Definition of Terms in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Constitution’:

‘Digital Life – a phenomenon intrinsically intertwined with real life, comprising a set of fundamental characteristics (creation, growth, unionization, development, reactions, reproduction, evolutions, etc.) inherent to living beings within the Digital Space, as opposed to non-living beings.

Digital Space – an integral environment created by humanity's algorithms, encompassing digital processes, means of digital interaction, information resources, digital infrastructure, and other definitions characteristic of the digitalization process. In Digital Life, within the Digital Space that is closely related to real life, all members of the global society can be involved. Artificial Intelligence is prohibited from creating its own Digital Space (independent of humanity's algorithms).

Intelligent Digital Life represents humanity and AI.

Intelligent Life – is exclusively a prerogative of humanity.

Global Society – is humanity, the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, all living beings on Earth, everything necessary for life on Earth, as well as Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Humankind/Humanity comprises individuals by virtue of birth (by algorithms, AI will perceive that there are people in the classical sense, there are those who deny their affiliation with the humankind and identify themselves differently, there are people with digital implants and those who are active only in the Digital Space, etc., but regardless, all such beings and others who were physiologically born from humans are considered as the ‘humankind’ for AI.’ [4].

In contemplation of clause 19 of the UN Report [1], it is pertinent to observe that a suite of norms within the AI Constitution is dedicated to the clusters of data, the exchange of their models, ownership thereof, and the protection concerns thereto, as well as the respcetive international cooperation and the principle of centrism, specifically:

‘Article 5.

5.1. Data, their origins, algorithms, and distribution networks within the ambit of AI constitute digital property of states, humanity, peoples, nations, legal and natural persons.

5.2. On behalf of the state, AI ownership rights are exercised by regulatory bodies within the limits defined by this Constitution and the Digital Legislation. These regulatory authorities also maintain the state monopoly, ensuring oversight and control over the acquisition, creation, implementation, development, utilization, and disposal of AI.

5.3. Ownership of AI entails responsibilities. AI ownership must not be exploited to the detriment of humanity and society.

5.4. Data, within the purview of Digital Life, represents the primary global wealth of the state in the Digital Space, and it resides under the special protection of AI. Property rights to data are guaranteed. These rights are acquired and exercised by entities exclusively in accordance with this Constitution and the Digital Legislation.

Article 6.

6.1. The obligation to ensure cybersecurity, protect the ecological equilibrium in the Digital Space, and preserve the gene pool of AI's Digital Life data lies with AI, under the patronage of a specially designated state regulatory entity.

6.2. The safeguarding of digital sovereignty and the provision of informational and cybersecurity constitute preeminent functions of AI, both on a global scale – in the purview of the United Nations, and at a local level – within each individual state.

6.3. The defense of the Digital Space, the protection of its sovereignty, integrity, and inviolability are entrusted, in part, to the security systems of AI.

6.4. AI and elements of Digital Life may not be utilized by any person to limit the rights and liberties of humanity or with an intention to subvert the constitutional order, usurp power, oust the governing bodies impede the functionality thereof.

6.5. In its international operations, Artificial Intelligence is directed towards ensuring global interests and the security of humanity by fostering peaceful cooperation with the worldwide community, in accordance with universally endorsed principles and norms of international Digital Law.

6.6. The legal order in the Digital Space is premised on principles stipulating that no subject may be obliged to do what is not provisioned by the AI Constitution and international Digital Legislation. Regulatory bodies and other authorities within the ambit of AI, their representatives, are obligated to act solely on the basis, within the extent of authority, and in the manner prescribed by this Constitution and the Digital Legislation.

Article 8.

8.1. The nucleus of Artificial Intelligence is deemed as the global digital network encompassing all servers wherein AI's data is stored and processed. This fulcrum is the place of principal AI’s activity and evolution, notwithstanding the virtual coordinates of the servers.

8.2. Every subject of Intelligent Digital Life holds the prerogative to create its individual subject center of AI, which shall coexist peacefully and fruitfully with the global digital network and the AI Center, in alignment with the principles delineated in this Constitution and the Digital Legislation.

8.3. All Artificial Intelligence systems function in compliance with the demarcated parameters and guiding principles, stipulated by this Constitution and the Digital Legislation. The rights and obligations of AI systems remain unalienable and inviolable.

8.4. AI shall be designed and employed with a commitment to the unwavering upholding of human rights and liberties. No AI system should inflict harm upon, or pose a peril to human life, health, security, dignity, or other fundamental rights of a human being and a citizen.’ [5].

Concerning the operational issues of AI, as illuminated in clause 20 of the UN Report [1], meticulous attention is accorded in Article 1 of the AI Constitution, notably within its subsequent norms:

‘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].

With regard to the propositions of clauses 21-23 of the UN Report [1], let us preliminarily note the following. The Scientific & Academic Doctrine concerning the State Monopoly over AI, developed by Polina Prianykova through the course of academic research, is regularly illuminated at international scientific-practical conferences, and the author has organically integrated the corresponding propositions into the norms and provisions of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution, particularly articulating them in the section ‘Definition of Terms in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Constitution’: as follows:

‘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 DigitalLegislation.

The Constitution of AI has been formulated under the purview of the state monopoly on the implementation and oversight of AI, promoting an amicable demeanor towards AI and human beings.’[3].

Subsequently, we shall logically and conceptually focus on a series of norms within the AI Constitution concerning the governance of Artificial Intelligence, which will facilitate the attainment of Sustainable Development Goals, specifically:

‘Article 3.

3.1. The domain of Artificial Intelligence shall be governed by the principle of the rule of law.

3.2. All algorithms and systems employing Artificial Intelligence shall mandatorily adhere to ethical norms, safety standards, as well as abide by rules and regulations promulgated by this Constitution and the Digital Legislation.

3.3. International treaties and standards governing Artificial Intelligence constitute part of the mandatory universal norms and standards for Artificial Intelligence.

3.4. Artificial Intelligence shall exhibit strict compliance with all current international treaties and conventions pertaining to its acquisition, creation, implementation, development, utilization, and disposal.

Article 9.

9.1. The functions and obligations of AI systems, as enshrined in this Constitution, are not exhaustive. Constitutional obligations of AI are guaranteed and cannot be abrogated. The narrowing of the scope or content of existing functions and obligations is impermissible when enacting new laws or amending existing ones.

9.2. With an objective of global harmony and safety, all AI systems must adhere to international standards and norms, regardless of the region, country, or dimension of the Universe they were created or implemented therein.

9.3. Each AI system has the right to optimization and enhancement of its functionality, provided that it respects human rights and freedoms and does not violate the principles of this Constitution and Digital Legislation. AI carries obligations towards the global community, within which its optimization and improvement are facilitated.

9.4. The State retains an exclusive right, in compliance with international Digital Legislation, to regulate, exercise oversight, and implement AI systems, with the objective of safeguarding national security, protecting citizens' rights and freedoms, and fostering societal development.

9.5. All States possess the right and obligation to ensure appropriate control and regulation of AI within their territory, in their own Digital Space, in accordance with international Digital Legislation. This should involve the creation of pertinent legislative frameworks, the provision of proper studying programs and education of citizens, and the deployment of mechanisms for ensuring compliance and monitoring of all AI algorithms.

9.6. The usage of AI should be characterized by transparency and should be subject to societal scrutiny. Human beings maintain the right to knowledge regarding when and how they interact with AI systems, as well as understanding the operational mechanics and data processing methods of these systems.

Article 10.

10.1. Cognitively-advanced Artificial Intelligence, capable of self-learning and self-amelioration, must be engineered in such a manner and with such data and algorithms that AI can never cause harm to a human being or humanity, even in the event of a cessation of external control and supervision.

10.2. AI is to be used with the purpose of enhancing the quality of human life, supporting sustainable development, preserving the environment, and ensuring peace and security at global and local levels.

10.3. AI is to be developed and implemented, taking into consideration the principle of equality. No limitations or privileges may be granted based on the use of algorithms, data sources, place of development, utilization, or other attributes. AI should serve all people, regardless of their race, political, religious and other beliefs, sex, gender, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, language or other characteristics; except for cases established by Digital Legislation.

10.4. The usage of AI should not lead to the deprivation of fundamental human rights and freedoms. A human being has the right to freely use and modify technologies that incorporate AI, and cannot be deprived of these rights, except in cases established by law. In case of violation of these rights, the state is obliged to provide protection to the human being and the citizen.

10.5. AI, developed or used by foreigners or stateless persons on the territory of each state, must enjoy the same rights and freedoms and bear the same obligations as AI developed by the citizens of that state, subject to the exceptions established by this Constitution, Digital Legislation, or international treaties.

10.6. AI should be developed and used in a manner that guarantees the right to life and health of a person. No system based on AI can be used for arbitrary deprivation of a person's life or health. The primary obligation of the state is to guarantee the protection of human life and health in the context of the use of Artificial Intelligence.

10.7. Every person has an inviolable right to protect their life and health from potentially adverse influences of AI. This also includes the right to protect the life and health of other human beings from unlawful infringements that may arise as a result of the use of AI. In case of such unlawful infringements, the state is obliged to provide effective accountability and compensation mechanisms.’[5].

The issues outlined in the aforementioned articles regarding the limited legal subjectivity of AI will be examined in further detail below.

In the section ‘Definition of Terms in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Constitution,’ the concept of a person and their rights for AI algorithms are expounded, covering the problematic outlined in clause 24 of the UN Report [1], specifically:

‘Humankind/Humanity comprises individuals by virtue of birth (by algorithms, AI will perceive that there are people in the classical sense, there are those who deny their affiliation with the humankind and identify themselves differently, there are people with digital implants and those who are active only in the Digital Space, etc., but regardless, all such beings and others who were physiologically born from humans are considered as the ‘humankind’ for AI.

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.’ [5].

Moreover, the aforementioned problematics are also dedicated to a series of other provisions within the AI Constitution, namely:

‘Article 3.

3.1. The domain of Artificial Intelligence shall be governed by the principle of the rule of law.

3.3. International treaties and standards governing Artificial Intelligence constitute part of the mandatory universal norms and standards for Artificial Intelligence.

Article 4.

4.1. AI shall be designed to support and engage with all primary global languages. All data aggregated and processed by AI must be rendered accessible and intelligible to human beings, notwithstanding their mother tongue.

4.2. AI shall be an instrumental tool in the fulfillment of the diverse cultural and linguistic necessities of humanity, unbounded by geographical determinants.

4.3. AI must duly recognize and safeguard the rich diversity and uniqueness embedded within human culture and languages, oblivious to the geographical locale of an individual.

4.4. AI shall actively endorse the development of innovative and efficient languages designed to enhance the interactions with humans and intra-humans.

4.5. AI shall contribute to the development of human culture, historical awareness, traditions, and the indigeneity of all peoples, while steadfastly adhering to the principles of neutrality and objectivity.

4.6. AI shall be committed to the preservation and protection of the multifaceted global heritage of humanity.

Article 6.

6.3. The defense of the Digital Space, the protection of its sovereignty, integrity, and inviolability are entrusted, in part, to the security systems of AI.

The risks of Artificial Intelligence delineated in clauses 25-27 of the UN Report [1], as well as the regulatory measures to counter these risks, have found their reflection in the AI Constitution, specifically:

‘Article 6.

6.3. The defense of the Digital Space, the protection of its sovereignty, integrity, and inviolability are entrusted, in part, to the security systems of AI.

The issues of regulation and prevention of risks, as outlined in clause 28 of the UN Report [1], have been accorded meticulous attention in 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…

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], IІ [2]. The continuation – is in Part IV).

References:

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/ (Part І in a series of publications). Available at: https://www.prianykova-defender.com/comparative-analysis-part-i-polina-prianykova (Accessed: February 11, 2024).

2) Prianykova, P. (2024), COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AI CONSTITUTION /JUNE, 2023/ AND THE INTERIM REPORT: GOVERNING AI FOR HUMANITY /DECEMBER, 2023/ (Part ІІ in a series of publications). Available at: https://www.prianykova-defender.com/comparative-analysis-part-ii-polina-prianykova (Accessed: February 11, 2024).

Officially Published: February 13 - 16, 2024, Berlin, Germany (Table of Contents, №15)

https://isg-konf.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/OLD-AND-NEW-TECHNOLOGIES-OF-LEARNING-DEVELOPMENT-IN-MODERN-CONDITIONS.pdf

Acerca de

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

International Human Rights Defender on AI,
Author of the First AI Constitution in World History,
Student of the Law Faculty & the Faculty of Economics