Gilad Abiri

Gilad Abiri

In January 2026, Anthropic published a 79-page "constitution" for its AI model Claude, the most comprehensive corporate AI governance document ever released. This Article offers the first legal and democratic-theoretic analysis of that document. Despite genuine philosophical sophistication, the constitution harbors two structural defects. First, it excludes the contexts where ethical constraints matter most: models deployed to the U.S. military operate under different rules, a gap exposed when Claude remained embedded in Palantir's Maven platform during military strikes in Iran even after a government-wide ban on Anthropic's technology. Second, its very comprehensiveness forecloses democratic contestation by resolving questions about AI values, moral status, and conscientious objection that should remain open for public deliberation. Anthropic's own 2023 experiment in participatory constitution-making found roughly 50% divergence between publicly sourced and corporate-authored principles, with the democratic version producing lower bias across nine social dimensions, yet the 2026 constitution incorporates none of those findings. I argue that AI governance suffers from a "political community deficit": the absence of any democratic body authorized to determine the principles governing AI behavior. Corporate transparency, however admirable, is not democratic legitimacy.

Gilad Abiri

Generative AI is frequently portrayed as revolutionary or even apocalyptic, prompting calls for novel regulatory approaches. This essay argues that such views are misguided. Instead, generative AI should be understood as an evolutionary step in the broader algorithmic media landscape, alongside search engines and social media. Like these platforms, generative AI centralizes information control, relies on complex algorithms to shape content, and extensively uses user data, thus perpetuating common problems: unchecked corporate power, echo chambers, and weakened traditional gatekeepers. Regulation should therefore share a consistent objective: ensuring media institutions remain trustworthy. Without trust, public discourse risks fragmenting into isolated communities dominated by comforting, tribal beliefs -- a threat intensified by generative AI's capacity to bypass gatekeepers and personalize truth. Current governance frameworks, such as the EU's AI Act and the US Executive Order 14110, emphasize reactive risk mitigation, addressing measurable threats like national security, public health, and algorithmic bias. While effective for novel technological risks, this reactive approach fails to adequately address broader issues of trust and legitimacy inherent to digital media. Proactive regulation fostering transparency, accountability, and public confidence is essential. Viewing generative AI exclusively as revolutionary risks repeating past regulatory failures that left social media and search engines insufficiently regulated. Instead, regulation must proactively shape an algorithmic media environment serving the public good, supporting quality information and robust civic discourse.

Gilad Abiri

We have convinced ourselves that the way to make AI safe is to make it unsafe. Since 2022, policymakers worldwide have embraced the Regulation Sacrifice - the belief that dismantling safety oversight will deliver security through AI dominance. Fearing China or USA will gain advantage, nations rush to eliminate safeguards that might slow progress. This Essay reveals the fatal flaw: though AI poses national security challenges, the solution demands stronger regulatory frameworks, not weaker ones. A race without guardrails breeds shared danger, not competitive strength. The Regulation Sacrifice makes three false promises. First, it promises durable technological leads. But AI capabilities spread rapidly - performance gaps between U.S. and Chinese systems collapsed from 9 percent to 2 percent in thirteen months. When advantages evaporate in months, sacrificing permanent safety for temporary speed makes no sense. Second, it promises deregulation accelerates innovation. The opposite often proves true. Companies report well-designed governance streamlines development. Investment flows toward regulated markets. Clear rules reduce uncertainty; uncertain liability creates paralysis. Environmental standards did not kill the auto industry; they created Tesla and BYD. Third, enhanced national security through deregulation actually undermines security across all timeframes. Near term: it hands adversaries information warfare tools. Medium term: it democratizes bioweapon capabilities. Long term: it guarantees deployment of uncontrollable AGI systems. The Regulation Sacrifice persists because it serves powerful interests, not security. Tech companies prefer freedom to accountability. Politicians prefer simple stories to complex truths. This creates mutually assured deregulation, where each nation's sprint for advantage guarantees collective vulnerability. The only way to win is not to play.

Gilad Abiri

We are increasingly subjected to the power of AI authorities. As AI decisions become inescapable, entering domains such as healthcare, education, and law, we must confront a vital question: how can we ensure AI systems have the legitimacy necessary for effective governance? This essay argues that to secure AI legitimacy, we need methods that engage the public in designing and constraining AI systems, ensuring these technologies reflect the community's shared values. Constitutional AI, proposed by Anthropic, represents a step towards this goal, offering a model for democratic control of AI. However, while Constitutional AI's commitment to hardcoding explicit principles into AI models enhances transparency and accountability, it falls short in two crucial aspects: addressing the opacity of individual AI decisions and fostering genuine democratic legitimacy. To overcome these limitations, this essay proposes "Public Constitutional AI." This approach envisions a participatory process where diverse stakeholders, including ordinary citizens, deliberate on the principles guiding AI development. The resulting "AI Constitution" would carry the legitimacy of popular authorship, grounding AI governance in the public will. Furthermore, the essay proposes "AI Courts" to develop "AI case law," providing concrete examples for operationalizing constitutional principles in AI training. This evolving combination of constitutional principles and case law aims to make AI governance more responsive to public values. By grounding AI governance in deliberative democratic processes, Public Constitutional AI offers a path to imbue automated authorities with genuine democratic legitimacy, addressing the unique challenges posed by increasingly powerful AI systems while ensuring their alignment with the public interest.