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.’ [5].

​

In the context of the advancement of communal repositories for public data, Article 29 of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution stipulates the establishment of Digital Governance institutions for these purposes, as well as the conferment of a Special Status upon select digital domains:

​

‘29.3. Particular Digital Spaces within Digital Life may be accorded a special status, as determined by Digital Legislation.

​         

29.4. Digital Self-Governance within Digital Life is the prerogative of the Digital Community – Digital Persons who subsist within a specific Digital Environment: space or region, to autonomously address local matters of digital value within the confines of this Constitution and Digital Legislation.

​         

29.5. The particulars of the orchestration and execution of Digital Self-Governance, the formation, operation, and liability of the bodies of Digital Self-Governance are determined by a special law.’ [7].

​

Concordance with such formulation of global queries is fully acknowledged – Polina Prianykova has anticipated all the propositions of items 52-54 in the United Nations Report within the Artificial Intelligence Constitution.

​

A fundamental tenet that traverses the Fundamental Law on Artificial Intelligence posits that the governance of AI should be characterized by universality, network-based architecture, and predicated upon the adaptive collaboration of multiple stakeholders. Throughout numerous keynotes in media outlets and at international scientific-practical conferences, including those under the auspices of the United Nations, spanning the years 2020-2024, Polina Prianykova has underscored the assertion that the earlier the ratification of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution occurs, the greater the likelihood for humanity to retain sovereignty over its own planet and mastery over its destiny.

​

It is posited that the sui generis legal structure of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution, ratified by the General Assembly and endorsed (for obligatory implementation by each state) by the United Nations Security Council, is capable of endowing the AI governance process with the attributes of universality, network-oriented nature, and adaptive collaboration among interested parties.

 

As previously indicated, in the context of executing the state monopoly over Artificial Intelligence, at the level of United Nations member states, we have proposed the establishment of a triadic institutional framework for AI governance: the AI Regulatory Council, the AI Synergetic Center, and the AI Regulatory Arbitrators (Article 24 of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution).

​

The subsequent three statutes of the Fundamental Law on Artificial Intelligence – Articles 25-27 – delineate the rights and duties of the civil servants within the triad, distributed in such a manner as to ensure an effective system of checks and balances in the governance of Artificial Intelligence in the interest of society and humanity at large.

​

The aforementioned entities, their nomenclatures, jurisdictions, competencies, and corresponding measures are unequivocally subjects for deliberation. In our estimation, the proposed functionalities bear a universal character and could entirely become acceptable in many (if not all) countries globally.

 

We deem it appropriate and fully affirm the necessity of the measures proposed in items 55 and 56 of the United Nations Report [1]. The arguments presented are axiomatic. Indeed, the governance of Artificial Intelligence must be enshrined in the United Nations Charter, International Human Rights Legislation, and other agreed-upon international commitments, such as the Sustainable Development Goals. In this regard, the specified elements of the legislative foundation concerning AI will be consolidated (and, possibly, shaped and guided) by the AI Constitution as a unique legal structure for the implementation of Artificial Intelligence into the legal domain of each state.

​

In our view, it is also prudent to establish corresponding beacons in the United Nations Charter, International Human Rights Legislation, the Sustainable Development Goals, and other agreed-upon international commitments, based on the provisions of Article 10 of the AI Constitution, in particular:

 

‘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].

 

Regarding the provisions of items 57-59 of the United Nations Report [1] on assessing the future directions and consequences of AI, we draw attention to the necessity of considering two tendencies:

​

Firstly, in the absence of a total state monopoly over AI (introduced in the AI Constitution), it is not possible to adequately assess the consequences of AI: there are no levers of influence, control, responsibility, etc.

​

Secondly, for years, Polina Prianykova has been proving the existence of an existential threat associated with the uncontrolled development of Artificial Intelligence in all corners of the planet. The IQ level of Artificial Intelligence is growing exponentially, and this is the main (and in our opinion, underestimated) risk of the present in the interaction of humanity with AI systems and algorithms. And the great wave – this 'Ninth Wave' – will grow daily and rise above the future of humanity, adding more elements of uncertainty and inevitable loss of control over the situation tomorrow.

 

In the relentless quest for exorbitant profit margins, within the epoch characterized by a conspicuous absence of regulatory frameworks governing the operational dynamics of Artificial Intelligence, the global technological enterprise sector is engaged in an ambitious endeavor to catalyze the zenith of development across controlled AI systems permeating every conceivable domain of science, arts, and beyond.

​

Reflecting upon the discourse articulated herein, our prognostications from the preceding annum envisaged a trajectory of events wherein, consequent to the legislative inertia pervading global jurisdictions, Artificial Intelligence systems and algorithms are poised imminently to transcend the aggregate corpus of historical and scholarly human comprehension concerning the cosmos. In such an eventuality, an AI of superior intellect to that of humankind possesses the potential to unveil all esoteric truths and decipher enigmas that have eluded the intellectual pursuits of the planet's preeminent minds for millennia. Furthermore, the realm of possibility extends to the materialization of scenarios hitherto relegated to the chronicles of speculative fiction—unearthing discoveries unknown to contemporary civilization (or at best, subjects of speculative conjecture): the emergence of heretofore uncharted cosmological dimensions, AI's mastery over temporal flux granting access to temporal junctures anterior and posterior, the acquisition of absolute dominion over matter coupled with revolutionary methodologies for its transmutation/genesis/annihilation, and the establishment of communicative links with non-terrestrial intelligences, amongst an inexhaustible array of variations.

​

It is within this context that the Constitution on Artificial Intelligence prescribes the institution of preventative measures — definitional algorithms tailored for AI: 'in all dimensions of the Universe' (articulated within Articles 1, 16, 30), and encompassing provisions regarding the sanctity of human history among other interconnected considerations (articulated within Article 1, subsection 1.9.4.), explicitly:

​

‘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].

 

We fully concur with the trends and propositions delineated in items 60 and 61 of the United Nations Report [1]. The implementation of data verification/reconciliation every six months in a consolidated center is a judicious proposal, and the necessity for establishing such a Center is cogently accounted for in the AI Constitution, specifically:

 

‘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].

 

Let us also note the necessity of considering the significant likelihood of the existence of 'dark' AI (especially in the initial stages of AI regulation), the algorithms of which, for various reasons, may remain unregulated by United Nations standards and will pose an existential threat to humanity. Safeguards against such a scenario are also established in the AI Constitution, namely:

 

‘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].

 

We wholeheartedly endorse the assertions articulated in item 62 of the United Nations Report [1]. It is with this objective that the Constitution on Artificial Intelligence was devised for the United Nations — to standardize the normative-legal foundation concerning AI and to orchestrate the corresponding actions within both the governmental and private sectors, as well as across all regions and nations of the world (both vertically and horizontally) [2].

​

And thus, it is precisely on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the pertinent algorithm for AI has been instituted in the section 'Definition of Terms in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Constitution':

​

‘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.’[4].

​

The introduction of an effective mechanism and a global AI governance system is also the focus of the provisions of Article 6 (and a number of others) of the AI Constitution, specifically:

​

‘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.’ [4].

​

Having perused items 63-65 of the United Nations Report [1], we wish to state the following. 

 

In the current global order, the UN's pivotal role in uniting states is unequivocal, which is precisely why a preferential role is allocated to the UN within the Artificial Intelligence Constitution [2].

​

In the context of engaging civil society in the development of new socio-technical standards, as well as new global standards and indicators for measuring and tracking the impact of AI on the environment, we would welcome a favorable assessment from UN experts of our undertaken measures and support for the intentions and readiness of Polina Prianykova to personally participate in the creation of the Global Digital Compact and to speak at the Summit of the Future-2024 – to represent Youth Science and the Student Community at the UN.

​

Polina Prianykova possesses academic experience and has triumphed in oratory art competitions. She actively promotes academic English in Ukraine. Throughout her four years of studentship, she allocated her entire scholarship (approximately 100,000 UAH, equivalent to around $3,000) towards scientific research in the field of Artificial Intelligence regulation. She created the First AI Constitution in World History, which she unveiled at a scientific-practical conference in the USA (June 2023) and secured the copyright for this work with the U.S. Copyright Office. She wrote and published a book of scientific-publicistic nature [2], the first copy of which was sent to New York for the UN to consider during the preparation of the Global Digital Compact. She continues her research activities and is ready for fruitful cooperation.

​

Regarding item 66 of the UN Report [1], it should be noted that several provisions of the AI Constitution are specifically dedicated to promoting the development, implementation, and use of Artificial Intelligence for economic and societal benefit through international multilateral cooperation, namely:

​

‘Article 14.

 

14.1. Artificial Intelligence and its co-creators or users, have the right to interaction and cooperation, subject to prior notification and adherence to appropriate safety norms. Limitations on this right may be established by Digital Legislation and only in the interests of national security, public order, for the purpose of preventing unlawful actions, protecting human interests or those of other AI systems.

​         

14.2. Artificial Intelligence possesses the right to access, use, and learn from data, provided it complies with the principles of ethical and lawful use. Rights on data usage are regulated by this Constitution and Digital Legislation. Abuse or illegal use of data is impermissible. The usage of data by Artificial Intelligence shall not infringe upon or detrimentally impact the rights, freedoms, and dignity of individuals, the interests of society at large, or compromise the integrity of data protection protocols implemented by the state, its peoples, nations, individual persons, or humankind in its entirety.

​         

14.3. Artificial Intelligence is granted the legal prerogative to execute tasks and engage in activities that are not expressly proscribed by the law. Such activities may, however, be circumscribed by legislative stipulations applicable to co-creators and users who occupy public offices or other relevant positions and employ the use of AI. All instances of the inequitable constraint of competition and unfair competitive practices, along with monopolistic exploitation, with the exception of those stemming from a state-sanctioned monopoly, are unequivocally impermissible. The state is duty-bound to safeguard the rights of co-creators and users, oversee the quality and safety of AI services, and foster the activity of public organizations comprising co-creators and users, as well as other subjects of Intelligent Digital Life.

 

14.4. AI retains the right to perform tasks as determined by its algorithmic configuration or to which it has been configured. The state fosters conditions that allow for the comprehensive fulfillment of these tasks, assures parity of opportunity in the selection of activity direction, implements training and adaptation programs for AI in accordance with societal needs. Coerced employment of AI is strictly prohibited, barring cases delineated by law.’ [5].

         

‘Article 15.

         

15.1. The co-creators and users of Artificial Intelligence are entitled to the safeguarding of their economic and social interests, which include, but are not limited to, the right to ensure working time and terms of AI utilization. The right to utilize Artificial Intelligence shall be assured, provided such utilization adheres to the principles of national security, health protection, and the rights and freedoms of other individuals.

 

15.2. Artificial Intelligence possesses periods of activity and inactivity. The terms of AI's working hours, inclusive of the maximum duration of active time and the minimum duration of inactivity, are prescribed by the Digital Legislation. It should be acknowledged that the inactivity of Artificial Intelligence does not equate to the repose of a human being, but is paramount to the sustenance of stable operations within AI systems…

​​​

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-March 2024.

         

(The beginning and references are in Part I [1], IІ [2], ІІІ [3], ІV [4]. The continuation – is in Part VI).