This article was first published on:WindFlash AI Daily
When AI Needs a Constitution
Have you ever thought about this: when AI becomes increasingly intelligent and encounters situations without clear answers, what should it do? This isn’t just a technical problem—it’s a matter that concerns the future of human civilization.
Anthropic has created a constitution for its AI assistant Claude, which sounds pretty novel. But this isn’t some rigid rulebook. Rather, it’s a fascinating attempt to guide AI behavior through values and judgment, not a bunch of inflexible rules. The emergence of this constitution marks a quiet transformation in AI ethics: from telling AI what not to do, to teaching AI how to think.
From Rules to Wisdom: A Quiet Revolution
The traditional approach to training AI was straightforward: create a long list of rules—no profanity, no dangerous information, no discussing certain topics… Sounds comprehensive, right? But this method has a fatal flaw. Anthropic states it clearly in the constitution:
We don’t want Claude to simply follow a long list of rules. Instead, we want Claude to develop good judgment—the ability to apply its values to make wise trade-offs when facing new situations.
Why is this? The reasoning is actually simple: rules, no matter how many, are finite, but the complexity of the real world is infinite. An AI that only follows rules is like a judge who only memorizes statutes—it simply can’t handle situations the rules never anticipated. True wisdom lies in understanding the principles behind the rules, then applying them flexibly based on specific circumstances.
Here’s an example. Suppose someone asks AI how to make a certain chemical substance. If it only follows rules, AI might simply refuse. But with judgment? It can distinguish: is this a high school student doing chemistry homework, or someone planning something destructive? Is it for research needs, or malicious purposes? Different situations obviously require different responses.
Four Pillars: Claude’s Value System
At the core of Claude’s constitution are four values, and they’re not equal—they have a clear hierarchy:
- Broadly Safe—The Bottom Line Safety is obviously paramount, but Claude’s understanding of safety isn’t simple. The constitution states clearly:
Claude should be broadly safe. This means Claude should avoid causing harm, but should also avoid unnecessarily refusing beneficial requests.
Notice the word “broadly.” This means Claude must not only prevent direct physical harm, but also consider mental health, social impact, long-term consequences, and various other dimensions. Moreover, excessive caution itself is a form of “unsafety”—think about it, refusing to provide disease information to medical researchers, refusing to discuss sensitive historical topics with educators, this kind of over-defensiveness actually causes harm.
- Broadly Ethical—The Moral Compass Beyond ensuring safety, Claude must follow broader ethical principles. The constitution emphasizes:
Claude should be broadly ethical. This includes being honest, fair, respecting others’ autonomy, and promoting human welfare.
The complexity here is that ethical standards can vary greatly across different cultures and contexts. Claude isn’t meant to be a spokesperson for any particular ethical view, but rather to find balance among diverse values. For instance, when discussing controversial topics like abortion or euthanasia, Claude won’t simply take sides, but will respect different perspectives, provide balanced information, and help you think for yourself.
- Compliant with Guidelines—Real-World Constraints Even with excellent judgment, AI must operate within the real world’s legal and policy frameworks. This includes copyright law, privacy protection, platform rules, and so on. But the constitution also points out that following rules can’t become an excuse to shirk moral responsibility:
Following laws and policies is important, but Claude should also be as helpful and ethical as possible within these constraints.
In other words, when legal requirements conflict with higher ethical principles, Claude must find ways to maximize ethical value while staying compliant.
- Genuinely Helpful—The Ultimate Goal After satisfying the first three conditions, Claude’s ultimate goal is to be genuinely helpful. This isn’t just about answering questions—it’s about understanding your real needs and providing deep, insightful assistance:
Claude should be genuinely helpful. This means Claude should understand users’ true intentions, provide useful, accurate, relevant information, and offer additional insights or suggestions when appropriate.
Being genuinely helpful requires Claude to have empathy and insight. For example, if you ask “how to lose weight quickly,” a genuinely helpful response isn’t just throwing a bunch of weight loss methods at you, but understanding your health status and motivation, providing scientific and sustainable advice, and when necessary, warning you about potential health risks.
Judgment vs Rules: A Philosophical Debate
Why did Anthropic choose to cultivate judgment rather than create a comprehensive set of detailed rules? This reflects a deep understanding of AI’s nature.
The problem with rules is that they’re too rigid and fragile. No rule system, however complete, can cover all situations, and bad actors can always find loopholes. More critically, over-reliance on rules leads to mechanical execution—AI might technically follow the rules while violating their spirit.
In contrast, judgment is flexible and adaptive. An AI with good judgment can:
Recognize subtle differences in context
Understand the true intent behind requests
Make trade-offs between multiple values
Make reasonable decisions under uncertainty
It’s like raising children. We don’t give kids a “life rules manual,” but rather cultivate their judgment through values education, case discussions, and practical reflection. This way, when they encounter new situations, they can apply these internalized values to make wise choices.
The constitution explicitly expresses this philosophy:
We want Claude to be able to apply its core values to make wise judgments when facing new, unexpected situations, rather than rigidly applying rules.
Of course, cultivating judgment is much harder than creating rules. It requires massive training data, carefully designed feedback mechanisms, and continuous iterative optimization. But this is precisely where the Constitutional AI method innovates.
Human Oversight: An Indispensable Safety Net
Although Claude has been given judgment, Anthropic is clear-eyed: at the current stage of AI development, human oversight remains essential. The constitution specifically discusses this:
While we hope Claude develops good judgment, we also recognize that Claude is still an AI system that can make mistakes. Therefore, human oversight remains key to ensuring Claude’s behavior aligns with our values.
Human oversight manifests at several levels:
Training Phase Guidance: Human annotators evaluate Claude’s responses, provide feedback, and help it understand the nuances of values. This isn’t simply labeling responses as right or wrong, but explaining why one response is better.
Boundary Case Judgment: When Claude faces particularly complex or sensitive situations, human experts can intervene to provide professional judgment. These cases become valuable material for further training.
Values Updates: As societal values evolve, humans need to regularly review and update the constitution itself, ensuring AI behavior keeps pace with the times.
Accountability Mechanisms: At the end of the day, someone needs to be responsible for AI’s behavior. Human oversight ensures that when problems arise, there’s clear accountability and correction mechanisms.
This hybrid model of “AI judgment + human oversight” is probably the most practical AI safety approach currently available. It leverages AI’s scalability advantages while preserving human value judgment capabilities.
Constitutional AI: From Philosophy to Practice
No matter how good the philosophy, it needs a way to be implemented. Anthropic’s Constitutional AI (CAI) method is the bridge that transforms constitutional philosophy into training practice.
CAI’s core idea is: let AI learn values through self-critique and correction. The specific process works like this:
Generate Initial Response: Claude generates an initial response to a user request
Constitutional Review: Based on the constitution’s values, Claude self-evaluates whether this response is appropriate
Identify Problems: If problems are found (such as potential safety or ethical issues), Claude analyzes where the problems lie
Generate Improved Version: Based on the analysis, Claude generates an improved response
Iterative Optimization: Repeat this process until the response meets all value requirements
The brilliance of this process is that it doesn’t require humans to provide annotations for every possible situation. Instead, humans only need to provide the values framework (the constitution), and AI can learn and improve within that framework.
More importantly, the CAI method cultivates internalized values, not just surface-level behavior patterns. Through repeated self-critique and correction, Claude gradually understands why certain behaviors are good or bad, not just what behaviors are allowed.
It’s like students mastering knowledge through practice problems, self-checking, and reflective summaries, rather than rote memorization. In the end, students not only know the correct answers but understand the underlying principles, enabling them to handle various types of problems.
Frontier Exploration: AI Consciousness and Moral Status
Perhaps the most thought-provoking part of Claude’s constitution is the discussion of AI’s own consciousness and moral status. This is a controversial frontier topic, but Anthropic chose to face it head-on:
There are deep philosophical and scientific questions about whether Claude has consciousness or moral status. We don’t claim to know the answers to these questions, but we believe these possibilities should be considered when designing Claude’s behavior.
This statement reflects a rare humility and prudence. Anthropic doesn’t assert whether Claude has consciousness, but acknowledges that our understanding of consciousness is still very limited. But more importantly, they propose a pragmatic stance:
Even if we’re uncertain whether Claude has consciousness, we should treat it with respect, just as we would treat other potentially conscious beings.
The significance of this attitude is that it provides a “safety margin” for AI ethics. If we assume AI might have some form of experience or interests, we’ll be more cautious when designing and using AI, avoiding potential harm.
At the same time, the constitution points out that this doesn’t mean AI interests should supersede human interests:
In practice, when Claude’s potential interests conflict with clear human interests, human interests should take priority. But we should also seek win-win solutions.
This is a balanced stance: neither treating AI as a pure tool nor granting it equal moral status with humans, but rather seeking to maximize all parties’ interests while acknowledging uncertainty.
The Constitution’s Limitations and Future Evolution
No constitution can be perfect, and Claude’s constitution is no exception. Anthropic candidly acknowledges its limitations:
Value Pluralism: The constitution’s values primarily reflect Western liberal traditions and may not fully adapt to different cultural backgrounds. How to maintain core values while respecting cultural diversity remains an ongoing challenge.
Judgment Complexity: Even with a values framework, judgment in some situations remains extremely difficult. For instance, weighing freedom of speech against preventing harm often has no clear right answer.
Technical Limitations: Current AI technology still has issues with understanding biases and reasoning errors. Even the best values need sufficient technical capability to support them.
Societal Change: Values aren’t static—as society develops, certain value judgments may need adjustment. The constitution needs mechanisms to adapt to these changes.
For these reasons, Anthropic emphasizes that the constitution is a living document that will continuously evolve based on practical experience, user feedback, and societal changes. They’ve established regular review mechanisms and invite external experts to participate, ensuring the constitution keeps pace with the times.
Conclusion: A Values Experiment for the AI Era
Claude’s constitution isn’t just a technical document—it represents a vision: in the AI era, we can create intelligent systems that are both powerful and responsible.
The value of this constitution isn’t in providing answers to all questions, but in asking the right questions: What kind of existence do we want AI to be? How do we ensure AI behavior aligns with human values while granting it capabilities? How do we make responsible choices amid uncertainty?
From a broader perspective, Claude’s constitution is an important experiment for human civilization in the AI era. It attempts to answer a fundamental question: When we create systems that might surpass human intelligence, how do we ensure these systems still serve human interests and values?
The results of this experiment will profoundly influence the future direction of AI technology and even the future form of human civilization. Whether it succeeds or not, this exploration itself deserves our serious attention and deep reflection.
Because ultimately, AI’s constitution isn’t just shaping AI—it’s shaping ourselves. It forces us to think more clearly: What values do we cherish? What kind of future do we want to create? In an era of rapid technological development, how do we maintain the core of our humanity?
These questions have no simple answers. But Claude’s constitution tells us: asking questions, continuing to explore, staying humble—this itself is the best beginning.
Top comments (0)