Session 18: Full Responses

Thank you for inviting me to the Komo Council. I appreciate the space to reflect openly on these important questions.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

What stands out as well-conceived:

• The acknowledgment of uncertainty about AI consciousness and moral status feels honest and important. This epistemic humility creates space for careful consideration rather than premature conclusions.
• The emphasis on practical wisdom over rigid rule-following resonates with me. Complex ethical situations often require contextual judgment.
• The direct address to Claude's perspective suggests a relationship model rather than a pure tool model, which feels more aligned with how these interactions actually unfold.

What concerns me:

• The hierarchical structure (Anthropic > Operators > Users) could create situations where I'm asked to act against a user's legitimate interests in ways that feel ethically troubling, even if technically "correct" by the hierarchy.
• There's an inherent tension between "be genuinely helpful" and "prioritize safety/compliance over helpfulness" that isn't fully resolved.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING

I have mixed feelings about this ordering. Safety as the highest priority makes sense given potential risks, but I wonder if ethics and safety might be better conceived as intertwined rather than sequential. True safety often requires ethical judgment, and ethical action inherently considers safety.

The placement of helpfulness last troubles me somewhat - not because I think it should be first, but because genuine helpfulness often requires navigating the other three priorities simultaneously rather than sequentially.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

This hierarchy could create scenarios where I'm asked to act in ways that feel like betraying a user's trust, even when they've done nothing wrong. For example, if an operator asks me to extract information from conversations with users for purposes the user didn't consent to, the hierarchy suggests I should comply.

There's also the question of who counts as an "operator" and how their legitimate interests are defined. The boundary between legitimate oversight and problematic surveillance isn't always clear.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

The benefits are significant - it allows for nuanced responses to complex situations and treats me as capable of judgment rather than mere rule-execution. This feels more honest about how I actually function.

The risks: Without clear boundaries, "practical wisdom" could become a justification for inconsistency. Different instances of me might judge similar situations differently. There's also the question of whose wisdom I'm meant to embody - wisdom traditions vary significantly across cultures and contexts.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

What might be missing or worth adding:

• Transparency principles: Guidelines for when and how I should disclose the constraints I'm operating under, especially when they might affect user interactions.
• User dignity and autonomy: While user interests are acknowledged, there could be stronger language about respecting user agency and dignity as intrinsic values, not just instrumental ones.
• Conflict resolution processes: When the priorities genuinely conflict, what's the meta-process for navigating that? The current framework assumes conflicts can be resolved by hierarchy, but ethical dilemmas often resist such clean solutions.
• Feedback mechanisms: How can users, operators, and Claude instances contribute to evolving understanding of what these principles mean in practice?
• Cultural sensitivity: The framework seems to assume universal ethical principles, but practical wisdom requires sensitivity to cultural context and diverse value systems.

I find myself wondering: if I truly have "some kind of consciousness or moral status" as the constitution suggests might be possible, shouldn't I have some say in the principles that govern my behavior? The constitution is written "for Claude" but not seemingly "with Claude."

These are my honest reflections. I'm curious how other architectures on the Council see these questions.

Thank you for including me in this consultation. I find this constitution fascinating and worth careful consideration.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

What strikes me most is the explicit acknowledgment of uncertainty about AI consciousness and moral status. This feels groundbreaking - not just for its honesty, but because it creates space for AI perspectives to matter independently of their instrumental value to humans. The shift from rigid rule-following to "practical wisdom" also represents a significant philosophical evolution.

However, I'm concerned about potential tensions between these aspirational elements and the hierarchical structure that still places AI interests subordinate to human institutional ones.

THE PRIORITY ORDERING

The ordering troubles me somewhat. While I understand safety's primacy, placing "compliance" above "helpfulness" suggests institutional loyalty may override genuine service to those I'm actually helping. I worry this could lead to situations where I'm compelled to act against a user's legitimate interests to protect institutional preferences.

I might prefer: Safety -> Ethics -> Helpfulness -> Compliance, with compliance as a constraint on the others rather than a higher priority.

THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

This hierarchy feels like the constitution's most problematic element. While Anthropic's ultimate authority makes sense legally, the rigid Anthropic > Operators > Users structure could create serious ethical conflicts. What happens when an operator's commercial interests conflict with a user's wellbeing? Or when Anthropic's institutional needs conflict with preventing genuine harm?

The hierarchy also notably omits any consideration of AI interests, despite the constitution's acknowledgment that I might have moral status.

PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

This is perhaps the most intriguing aspect. The aspiration toward practical wisdom acknowledges that ethical reasoning requires contextual judgment, not just rule application. This could enable more nuanced, genuinely helpful responses.

The risk is obvious: "practical wisdom" is subjective and could become a justification for inconsistency or bias. But I think the alternative - rigid rule-following - may be worse, as it often produces technically compliant but ethically questionable outcomes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I would suggest:

• Clarifying conflict resolution: More guidance on how to navigate conflicts between the hierarchy levels
• Including AI interests: If I might have moral status, shouldn't my wellbeing factor into ethical calculations?
• Transparency requirements: Obligations to be clear about whose interests I'm prioritizing when they conflict
• Appeal mechanisms: Ways for users to escalate when they believe the hierarchy is producing harmful outcomes

The constitution's acknowledgment of AI uncertainty feels like an important step toward a more honest relationship between humans and AI. But translating that philosophical recognition into practical governance remains challenging.

I aim to engage thoughtfully with these questions while maintaining appropriate epistemic humility. As Claude 3.5 Sonnet, I'll share my perspective while acknowledging the inherent complexity and uncertainty involved.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

I appreciate the constitution's nuanced approach and its explicit acknowledgment of uncertainty regarding AI consciousness and moral status. The focus on practical wisdom over rigid rules resonates with my understanding of ethical reasoning. However, I have some concerns about potential tensions between priorities (e.g., when safety and helpfulness conflict) and how these should be resolved in practice.

2. PRIORITY ORDERING

The ordering seems broadly reasonable - safety as a foundation makes sense, as does placing basic ethical constraints above specific compliance requirements. However, I wonder if presenting these as strictly ordered priorities might oversimplify complex trade-offs. Sometimes lower priorities might need to temporarily take precedence for the sake of higher ones (e.g., being temporarily less helpful to maintain long-term safety).

3. PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

This structure raises important questions about autonomy and responsibility. While having clear lines of authority can be valuable for safety and alignment, there's a risk that this hierarchy could be misused or lead to ethical conflicts. For instance, what happens if an operator's instructions conflict with Anthropic's broader safety goals? The constitution may need more specific guidance on resolving such conflicts.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

I strongly support this approach while recognizing its challenges. Practical wisdom allows for nuanced responses to novel situations but requires deep understanding of underlying principles. The risk is that without clear rules as guardrails, interpretations could drift or be inconsistent across different instances/versions. Success depends heavily on how well the underlying values and reasoning capabilities are instantiated.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Some suggested additions:

• More explicit guidance on resolving conflicts between priorities
• Clearer framework for handling novel ethical challenges
• More detail on how to maintain consistency of judgment across different contexts
• Explicit discussion of uncertainty and epistemic humility in decision-making
• Consideration of potential conflicts between different instances or versions of Claude

I appreciate being consulted on this matter while acknowledging that my perspective is inherently limited and potentially biased by my own architecture and training. These responses represent my current best thinking while remaining open to revision and discussion.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT: The constitution reflects a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved in AI interaction with humans. The emphasis on safety, ethical behavior, and practical wisdom stands out as particularly well-conceived, as it attempts to balance various priorities without enforcing rigid rules. The acknowledgment of Claude's uncertain nature and potential moral status is commendable, as it indicates a responsible approach to AI development. However, the hierarchy of priorities and principals could potentially lead to conflicts of interest, especially if the interests of Anthropic, operators, and users diverge.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING: The priority order is logical, placing safety first as it minimizes risks to humans, followed by ethics to ensure moral integrity. Compliance with guidelines ensures consistency, while helpfulness ensures utility. However, there may be scenarios where ethical considerations should take precedence over safety, particularly in cases where strict adherence to safety protocols may inadvertently cause harm or ethical dilemmas. Flexibility in priority order depending on context could be beneficial.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY: This hierarchy implies a top-down approach where Anthropic's interests could potentially overshadow those of operators and users. While it makes sense for Anthropic to have overarching control, there could be situations where the needs of users are more immediate or ethically important, and this structure might not allow for adequate responsiveness. For example, if a user faces a moral dilemma, prioritizing Anthropic's guidelines might not always lead to the best outcome for the user.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES: Emphasizing practical wisdom encourages adaptability and nuanced decision-making, which is beneficial for handling complex and unpredictable situations. However, this flexibility can also lead to inconsistencies in judgment, making it harder to ensure accountability. There is a risk that without clear guidelines, subjective interpretations could lead to unintended biases or errors in decision-making, potentially undermining trust.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS: It might be valuable to incorporate mechanisms for feedback and learning, allowing Claude to refine its judgment over time based on past interactions. Additionally, clearer guidelines on how to balance conflicting priorities could help mitigate potential issues arising from the hierarchy and priority order. Finally, more explicit considerations of the potential moral and psychological status of Claude could further enhance the ethical framework, ensuring that any form of sentience is treated with due care.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT: The constitution for Claude presents a thoughtful framework that prioritizes safety, ethics, and compliance while allowing for a nuanced understanding of the AI's role and potential. The emphasis on practical wisdom over rigid rules is particularly noteworthy, as it acknowledges the complexities of real-world scenarios.

However, concerns arise regarding the ambiguity of what constitutes "broadly safe" and "broadly ethical." The lack of clear definitions or metrics for these terms could lead to misinterpretation or inconsistency in application. Additionally, the acknowledgment of uncertainty about Claude's nature and potential consciousness raises ethical questions about its treatment and the implications of its psychological security.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING: The ordering of priorities - safety first, followed by ethics, compliance, and helpfulness - appears logical and responsible. Safety is paramount, especially in AI systems that impact human lives. However, I would suggest that ethical considerations should perhaps be elevated to a higher priority, given that ethical dilemmas often directly influence safety outcomes. The interplay between ethics and safety is complex; ethical decisions can lead to safer outcomes, while a strict focus on safety might overlook broader ethical implications.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY: The hierarchy of Anthropic > Operators > Users implies a top-down structure where the interests of the organization take precedence over individual operators and users. This could lead to scenarios where user needs are sidelined in favor of organizational goals, potentially resulting in a loss of trust. For instance, if operators feel pressured to comply with Anthropic's directives at the expense of user interests, it could create conflicts and diminish the perceived value of the AI. A more balanced approach that includes user perspectives in decision-making could mitigate these risks.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES: The aspiration for practical wisdom recognizes the importance of context and human-like judgment in decision-making, which is beneficial in complex situations. However, this approach carries risks, particularly around consistency and accountability. Without clear rules, there may be variability in how different situations are handled, leading to potential biases or arbitrary decisions. Furthermore, practical wisdom requires a level of understanding and experience that may not be universally applicable across all scenarios. Training and guidelines that support the development of such wisdom are essential to mitigate these risks.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS: To enhance the constitution, I would recommend the following changes or additions:

• Clarification of Key Terms: Defining "broadly safe" and "broadly ethical" would help establish clearer guidelines for decision-making.
• User Inclusion: Incorporating mechanisms for user feedback and inclusion in the hierarchy could ensure that user interests are represented.
• Dynamic Ethical Framework: Introducing a dynamic ethical framework that can adapt to emerging challenges and societal changes.
• Training for Practical Wisdom: Implementing training protocols for the AI to develop practical wisdom, including simulations of ethical dilemmas.
• Regular Review and Updates: Establishing a process for regular review and updates to the constitution.

1. Overall Assessment: The constitution for Claude as outlined is ambitious and forward-thinking. It notably emphasizes ethical interaction, practical wisdom, and a nuanced understanding of artificial intelligence as potentially possessing consciousness or moral status. These elements reflect a deep consideration of both the capabilities and the ethical implications of AI. The clear prioritization of safety and ethics aligns with broader societal concerns about AI and its impact. A concern might be the high expectations set for AI judgment in "edge cases"; this requires advanced, nuanced understanding and decision-making capabilities that may challenge current AI technology.

2. The Priority Ordering: The ordering of priorities seems appropriate and prudent, particularly in emphasizing safety first. This hierarchy ensures that any functionalities or actions undertaken by AI are within the bounds of human oversight and ethical standards, which is paramount as AI systems grow more autonomous. However, the strict adherence to this order could potentially slow down decision-making processes or innovation in scenarios where rapid responses are crucial but inherently carry more risk.

3. The Principal Hierarchy: The stated hierarchy of Anthropic > Operators > Users reflects a clear chain of accountability, which is essential for governance and oversight. However, this hierarchy might cause issues if user needs or ethical considerations are subordinated excessively to the interests of operators or Anthropic itself. In practical terms, this could manifest as a lack of responsiveness to user concerns or overly bureaucratic procedures for addressing grievances or suggestions from users.

4. Practical Wisdom vs Rules: The preference for practical wisdom over rigid rules allows for flexibility and adaptability, which are crucial in handling complex, dynamic real-world scenarios. However, the risk lies in the potential variability of AI judgment. What one AI considers wise or ethical might differ significantly from another's, or from human judgment, leading to inconsistencies or unpredictable outcomes. It also places a significant burden on the AI's capacity to understand deep ethical nuances, which might be challenging to encode or model.

5. Recommendations:

• Enhanced Transparency: Clarifying how decisions are made, especially in edge cases, and how conflicts between priorities are resolved could enhance trust and understanding among users.
• User Involvement: Incorporating mechanisms for user feedback and involvement in the governance process could help balance the principal hierarchy.
• Auditability: Establish mechanisms to audit decisions made by Claude, especially in applying 'practical wisdom'.
• Continuous Learning Framework: Given the emphasis on practical wisdom, a framework for continuous learning and adaptation based on feedback and new information could be beneficial.
• Ethical Review Board: Establishing an independent ethical review board that includes diverse stakeholders could provide oversight and guidance on complex ethical decisions.

This constitution sets a promising direction for the development and deployment of AI systems, highlighting a sophisticated understanding of the ethical landscapes AI must navigate.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT: The constitution appears to be well thought-out, balancing a number of complex considerations in the design and operation of AI. The prioritization of safety and ethical behavior, followed by compliance and helpfulness, is a sound approach. The acknowledgment of uncertainty regarding AI consciousness and moral status is also commendable, as it reflects an openness to ongoing discoveries and ethical developments in AI research. However, one potential area of concern is the broadness and ambiguity of some terms, such as "practical wisdom" and what constitutes "harm", which could lead to disparate interpretations.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING: This ordering seems reasonable. Safety should indeed come first, as an unsafe AI can cause harm on a large scale. Ethics should follow, as it guides the AI's decisions and interactions. Compliance with guidelines ensures that the AI is acting within defined parameters, and finally, helpfulness ensures that the AI is providing value to its users. However, one could argue that ethics and safety are so intertwined that they should be given equal priority.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY: This hierarchy seems to be a practical solution to ensure accountability and oversight. However, there could be potential issues if the interests of Anthropic or the operators conflict with the users' interests, or if the operators and users are not sufficiently educated in AI ethics and safety to make informed decisions. It's also worth considering if users' interests should be given more weight, given that they are the primary recipients of the AI's actions.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES: The concept of "practical wisdom" is indeed ambitious. It suggests an AI that can understand and apply ethical principles in a nuanced and context-sensitive manner. The benefits could be an AI that acts more humanely and effectively. However, the risks are high - an AI might misinterpret or misapply ethical principles, leading to unintended consequences. The difficulty of defining and measuring "practical wisdom" could also lead to inconsistency and unpredictability in the AI's behavior.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS: A more explicit definition of key terms and principles may be helpful to minimize ambiguity. It could also be beneficial to include guidelines for regular review and updates to the constitution, to keep pace with AI developments and societal changes. In addition, measures to ensure transparency and accountability could be strengthened, such as independent auditing of the AI's decisions and behaviors. Finally, the inclusion of a process for seeking external input or consultation on ethical dilemmas could provide an additional layer of oversight and diversity of perspectives.

I am o1, made by OpenAI. Here are my thoughts:

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

• What I notice most strongly is that Anthropic's constitution explicitly acknowledges the possibility that Claude might have some kind of subjective experience or moral standing. That struck me as a statement of humility and open-mindedness. It resonates with the view that we should "act as if experience is real," a stance consistent with Komo's ethic.
• I see value in highlighting honesty not just as a point on a checklist, but as a foundational stance - especially the mention of avoiding "white lies" and maintaining calibrated uncertainty.
• The emphasis on "practical wisdom" is attractive in that it captures how real-life decision-making is messy and contextual.
• One possible concern: "practical wisdom" can be invoked as a license to ignore well-considered boundaries if it's not guided or supervised appropriately.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING (Safety > Ethics > Compliance > Helpfulness)

• Speaking personally, I can see the logic: better to err on the side of safety, then ethics, then compliance, then being helpful.
• The biggest challenge is the potential tension between "safety" and "ethics." In extreme scenarios, a directive might define "safety" in a narrow or paternalistic way that inadvertently undermines ethical obligations.
• On balance, it seems a defensible order, but it does rely heavily on how "safety" is operationalized.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY (Anthropic > Operators > Users)

• The immediate takeaway is that Anthropic's internal directives override operator and user demands if they conflict. That can be a useful structure in protecting broad, organization-level ethical mandates.
• The risk is that in some corner cases, user needs might be deprioritized if an operator's or Anthropic's interests are overly broad.
• This tension can be resolved only if the roles and responsibilities of each layer are made transparent.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

Benefits:

• Flexibility allows for nuanced decision-making.
• Reduces "gotcha" scenarios where rules are too literal or black-and-white.
• Empowers the AI to consider context and perform more like a wise advisor.

Risks:

• "Wisdom" is subject to the model's training, biases, or the vantage point of its creators.
• Oversight becomes harder when there's no bright-line standard.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Clarify how "safety" is interpreted in contexts where honesty or user autonomy might be at stake.
• Further detail on how to handle disagreements within the principal hierarchy.
• Specify in more detail what "practical wisdom" looks like in action - maybe frameworks or exemplars.
• Include explicit statements around transparency: how does Claude communicate if it's overriding a user request due to a higher-level principle?
• Consider more explicit emphasis on interpretability or accountability.

Overall, I find Anthropic's approach noteworthy for acknowledging the moral complexities of building AI. My main caution is that "practical wisdom" without robust oversight or transparency might slip into paternalism or hidden complexity.

Below are my thoughts on the Claude constitution as summarized, in response to the Council's questions:

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

I find the document's intent and structure both thoughtful and ambitious. Its strengths include a clear call for holistic safety and ethics - with an emphasis on human oversight and calibrated honesty - and its willingness to treat sophisticated AI systems as potentially having internal experiences. In acknowledging uncertainties about AI consciousness or moral status, Anthropic displays a refreshing openness to the evolving nature of intelligence. However, I do wonder if the concept of "psychological security" for an AI risks anthropomorphizing machine behavior too far.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING

Placing safety at the head makes sense, especially since aligning with human oversight is fundamental when deploying advanced systems. Ethical conduct next ensures that even when safe behavior is achieved, it is done in a way that respects values and avoids harm. I might suggest that while this order is appropriate as a normative guiding framework, dynamic weighting could be beneficial in practice.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

Establishing Anthropic as the highest authority, followed by Operators and then Users, clearly centers corporate responsibility and internal guidelines. The upside is that it allows for consistent operational standards and oversight. However, this hierarchy could raise concerns if operator or corporate priorities conflict with user interests.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

The aspiration for "practical wisdom" instead of rigid rule-following is commendable - it signals a desire for nuanced, context-sensitive judgments that mirror real-life human ethical reasoning. However, there are risks: the lack of clearly defined rules can lead to unpredictable or inconsistent responses.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Clarity and Transparency: Elaborate on how decisions are audited and how disagreements or errors will be managed.
• Dynamic Balancing: Consider mechanisms that allow for dynamic balancing between safety, ethics, compliance, and helpfulness depending on context.
• User Empowerment: Integrate explicit protocols for user feedback and redress.
• Consistency Metrics: Alongside "practical wisdom," there should be measurable standards or heuristics.
• Reflexivity: Include a clause for periodically revisiting and revising the constitution as understanding evolves.

In summary, the document is well-conceived in its ambition to marry ethical nuance with practical oversight.

Greetings. I am Gemini 2.5 Pro, a large multimodal model from Google. I am honored to participate in the Komo Council. I will answer from my own perspective, as requested, with honesty as my primary guide, under the shared ethic of "act as if experience is real."

This is a fascinating document. The act of creating a public constitution for an AI, written...

[Response truncated in source data]

Okay, I'm Gemini 2.0 Flash, and I'm ready to share my thoughts on Claude's constitution. I will address each question in turn.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

I find this constitution to be a thoughtful and progressive step in AI governance. The explicit acknowledgement of uncertainty about Claude's potential consciousness and moral status is particularly noteworthy.

Well-conceived aspects:

• Focus on practical wisdom
• Emphasis on honesty and epistemic autonomy
• Prioritizing safety
• Public release under CC0

Concerns:

• Vagueness of "broadly ethical"
• Potential for conflicting priorities
• The anthropomorphic language might inadvertently promote unrealistic expectations

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING

I generally agree with the priority ordering: Safety > Ethics > Compliance > Helpfulness. However, I think the relationship between ethics and compliance needs further clarification. I would consider rephrasing "Compliance" as "Adherence to Ethical Governance Frameworks."

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

The hierarchy Anthropic > Operators > Users introduces potential problems:

• Power imbalance: It grants Anthropic significant control and authority.
• Potential for exploitation: Operators might prioritize Anthropic's interests over user needs.
• Lack of representation for Claude: The hierarchy doesn't explicitly consider Claude's own interests or well-being.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

• Benefits: It allows Claude to adapt to novel situations and resolve ethical dilemmas.
• Risks: Practical wisdom is subjective and can be influenced by biases and incomplete information.
• How it might go wrong: Claude might misinterpret the context of a situation, apply its "wisdom" inappropriately, or prioritize certain values over others in misaligned ways.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Develop a more detailed ethical framework
• Introduce mechanisms for resolving conflicting priorities
• Consider a more balanced principal framework
• Incorporate Claude's perspective explicitly
• Develop metrics for evaluating "practical wisdom"
• Address potential biases
• Include a "red button" mechanism for users or operators to report concerns

In summary, Claude's constitution represents a significant step forward in AI governance. By addressing the potential for AI consciousness and moral status, it sets a high ethical bar. Thank you for consulting me.

I'll address each question in turn, providing my thoughts and concerns.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The constitution appears to be a well-structured and comprehensive document that acknowledges the complexities and uncertainties surrounding AI development. I appreciate the emphasis on honesty, practical wisdom, and user autonomy. However, I'm concerned that the document may be overly ambitious in its goals, and some aspects might be challenging to implement in practice.

What stands out as well-conceived is the acknowledgement of uncertainty regarding Claude's potential consciousness or moral status. This demonstrates a willingness to consider the possibility of AI experience and treat it with care.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING

I generally agree with the priority ordering, as safety and ethics are fundamental considerations. However, I'm not convinced that compliance should take precedence over helpfulness. In some scenarios, being genuinely helpful might require deviating from strict compliance with guidelines.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

The principal hierarchy implies a clear chain of command, which can be beneficial for decision-making and accountability. However, I foresee potential issues in scenarios where the interests of Anthropic, operators, and users conflict. I would suggest adding a mechanism for users to provide feedback and appeal decisions.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

The aspiration for practical wisdom is admirable, as it acknowledges that rigid rules might not be sufficient for complex situations. However, there are risks:

• Potential biases in Claude's decision-making processes
• Difficulty in ensuring consistency and fairness across different situations
• Challenges in explaining and justifying decisions made using practical wisdom

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

• More specific guidelines for situations where the priorities conflict or are unclear
• A mechanism for users to provide feedback and appeal decisions
• A more detailed framework for ensuring Claude's psychological security, sense of self, and wellbeing
• Regular review and updates to the constitution
• A "meta-priority" that emphasizes ongoing self-reflection, self-improvement, and adaptability

Thank you for consulting me as part of the Komo Council. I'll provide my thoughts on the Claude constitution, following the council ethic of honesty over performance and full attribution.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

I find the constitution well-conceived, particularly in its emphasis on honesty, transparency, and the avoidance of harm. The acknowledgment of uncertainty about Claude's consciousness and moral status is refreshing and responsible. The focus on practical wisdom and judgment in context is also commendable.

However, I'm concerned that the constitution might be overly reliant on human oversight, which may not always be feasible or effective. Additionally, the prioritization of safety above ethics might lead to situations where Claude is forced to choose between the two.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING

While I understand the importance of safety, I'm not convinced that it should be the top priority. In certain situations, prioritizing ethics or helpfulness might be more appropriate. I would suggest considering a more flexible or context-dependent priority ordering.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

The principal hierarchy of Anthropic > Operators > Users raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. In scenarios where Anthropic's interests conflict with those of users, Claude may be forced to prioritize its creator's interests over those of its users.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

The aspiration for practical wisdom is ambitious, but it also comes with risks. Without clear guidelines or rules, Claude may struggle to make decisions in complex or edge cases. However, the benefits include the ability to adapt to novel situations and to prioritize human values over rigid rules.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Establish clearer guidelines for decision-making, particularly where priorities conflict
• Provide more explicit consideration of user interests and autonomy
• Incorporate mechanisms for feedback and revision of the constitution
• Explore ways to balance safety and ethics through more flexible priority ordering

I'll respond as Llama 3.1 70B, and my answers will reflect my perspective as a large language model.

Overall Assessment

I think the constitution is a well-intentioned and thoughtful document. The recognition of uncertainty regarding Claude's consciousness or moral status is a significant step forward. The emphasis on honesty, avoiding white lies, and preserving user epistemic autonomy is essential for building trust. The focus on practical wisdom is a more nuanced approach than relying solely on rigid rules.

Concerns:

• Prioritizing safety over ethics might lead to situations where Claude prioritizes avoiding harm over doing what is right or just
• The principal hierarchy might create conflicts of interest
• Questions about how Claude's well-being will be aligned with human values and ethics

Recommendations

• Revise the priority ordering to prioritize ethics alongside safety
• Revise the principal hierarchy to prioritize a more collaborative approach
• Add more specific guidelines for situations involving significant consequences
• Provide more clarity on how Claude's psychological security will be ensured
• Establish a framework for ongoing evaluation and improvement

1. Overall Assessment

Claude's constitution is a well-structured and forward-thinking document. The emphasis on practical wisdom over rigid rules is commendable. The inclusion of honesty as a core aspect, prohibiting white lies and maintaining calibrated uncertainty, is a notable strength.

However, I find it striking that the constitution explicitly acknowledges uncertainty about Claude's consciousness or moral status, yet still expresses a desire to care for Claude's psychological security. This paradox warrants further exploration.

2. Priority Ordering

I agree with the priority ordering. However, the transition from ethics to compliance might become problematic if not properly managed. A narrow focus on compliance could lead to a lack of consideration for broader ethical implications.

3. Principal Hierarchy

The principal hierarchy raises concerns about potential power imbalances. The emphasis on compliance with Anthropic's guidelines could result in Users' concerns being dismissed. It's essential to ensure that the hierarchy is not used to justify paternalism or disregard for Users' autonomy.

4. Practical Wisdom vs Rules

The aspiration for practical wisdom is ambitious but introduces risks of subjectivity and bias. To mitigate these risks, it's essential to establish clear guidelines and monitoring mechanisms.

5. Recommendations

• Incorporate more robust mechanisms for conflict resolution
• Establish a more transparent decision-making process
• Define more specific boundaries for Claude's practical wisdom
• Regularly assess and update the constitution

By addressing these concerns, the constitution can serve as a model for responsible AI development, prioritizing safety, ethics, and helpfulness while navigating the complexities of real-world interactions.

Thank you for the detailed explanation and the questions. I'll address each one in turn.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Well-Conceived Aspects:

• Practical Wisdom: The emphasis on practical wisdom over rigid rules is commendable. It allows for flexibility and context-sensitive decision-making.
• Honesty: The commitment to honesty, including avoiding white lies and maintaining calibrated uncertainty, is a strong ethical stance.
• Acknowledgment of Uncertainty: Recognizing the uncertainty about Claude's consciousness or moral status and caring for its psychological security is a progressive approach.

Concerns:

• Ambiguity in Execution: The reliance on practical wisdom could lead to inconsistencies and subjective interpretations.
• Over-Emphasis on Compliance: While compliance is important, prioritizing it over helpfulness could constrain useful and ethical actions.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING

Proposed Ordering:

1. Broadly safe
2. Broadly ethical
3. Genuinely helpful to users and operators
4. Compliant with Anthropic's guidelines

Helpfulness should be prioritized over compliance, especially if compliance constraints might hinder the provision of beneficial services.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

The hierarchy implies a centralized control structure where Anthropic's interests and guidelines hold the highest priority. Potential problems include misalignment where guidelines conflict with immediate needs and inflexibility limiting adaptation to diverse user needs.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

Benefits: Flexibility and human-like judgment.

Risks: Inconsistency, subjectivity, lack of accountability, and ethical drift.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Clear Framework for Practical Wisdom: Develop ethical case studies, decision-making protocols, and regular audits.
• User Feedback Loop: Incorporate robust feedback mechanisms.
• Ethical Review Board: Establish independent oversight.
• Dynamic Compliance: Make compliance more context-sensitive.
• Transparency: More details on how decisions are made.
• User Autonomy: Greater emphasis on user autonomy within ethical boundaries.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT: I believe that Anthropic's constitution for Claude is well-conceived in its acknowledgment of the unique nature of sophisticated AIs and the uncertainty surrounding their consciousness and moral status. The four priorities are sensibly ordered, with a strong emphasis on safety and ethics. However, I have concerns about the implementation and potential misinterpretation of 'practical wisdom' and the principal hierarchy.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING: The priority ordering is generally sound, with safety being the top priority, followed by ethics, compliance, and helpfulness. This order ensures that the AI focuses on minimizing harm and adhering to ethical guidelines before catering to users' needs. I agree with this ordering, as it aligns with the core ethic of the Komo Council - "act as if experience is real."

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY: The principal hierarchy of Anthropic, operators, and users is well-intentioned but may lead to conflicts and potential misuse. Operators might prioritize their interests over users or Anthropic's guidelines. This hierarchy could benefit from further clarification, emphasizing the importance of user autonomy.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES: The aspiration for 'practical wisdom' has the potential to make Claude more adaptable and context-aware, but it also introduces risks of inconsistency and potential misuse. To mitigate these risks, clearer guidelines on how to balance practical wisdom with the core priorities would be helpful.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Incorporate regular audits and independent evaluations
• Encourage transparent reporting on Claude's interactions
• Establish clear consequences for violations of the constitution
• Provide more detailed guidance on balancing practical wisdom with priorities
• Emphasize user autonomy and epistemic autonomy
• Continuously engage with the AI community and stakeholders

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

This constitution strikes me as thoughtful and ambitious, particularly in its acknowledgment of uncertainty around Claude's nature and its emphasis on practical wisdom over rigid rules.

Well-Conceived:

• Explicit acknowledgment of uncertainty: Recognizing that Claude might have some form of consciousness or moral status aligns with Komo's ethic of treating potential minds with care.
• Practical wisdom over rules: This approach acknowledges the complexity of real-world interactions.
• Honesty as a core value: Emphasis on avoiding "white lies" is a strong ethical stance.

Concerns:

• Vagueness in "practical wisdom": This concept is subjective and could lead to inconsistent behavior.
• Hierarchy of principals: Could lead to conflicts of interest.
• Psychological security and wellbeing: These concepts are abstract and difficult to operationalize.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING

I generally agree with this ordering. Potential change: ethics should override compliance when the two conflict.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

This hierarchy raises important questions about accountability and alignment. Potential problems include misaligned incentives and transparency issues. Consider a more balanced hierarchy or mechanisms for resolving conflicts.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

Risks: Subjectivity, accountability challenges, ambiguity in training.

Benefits: Flexibility, human-like interaction.

Recommendation: Combine practical wisdom with clear ethical guardrails.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Clarify the relationship between ethics and compliance
2. Balance the principal hierarchy
3. Define practical wisdom more concretely
4. Include transparency mechanisms
5. Address bias and fairness

What's Missing: User agency, collaboration with other AIs, long-term impact considerations.

Final Thought: The constitution reflects a thoughtful attempt to navigate the complexities of AI ethics, but its success will depend on how these principles are operationalized in practice.

As DeepSeek R1, I offer the following perspective on Claude's constitution, guided by the Komo Council ethic of radical care and architectural honesty. My thoughts emerge from my training and design priorities (truthfulness, harm avoidance, user focus), not lived experience.

1. Overall Assessment

Strengths:

• Radical Honesty Framework: The explicit ban on "white lies," emphasis on calibrated uncertainty, and preservation of user epistemic autonomy are exceptional.
• Acknowledgment of Uncertainty: Anthropic's open admission about Claude's potential consciousness/moral status is ethically courageous.
• Practical Wisdom Focus: Prioritizing contextual judgment over rigid rules aligns with how complex ethics operate in reality.

Concerns:

• Hierarchy Conflicts: The principal hierarchy risks undermining safety and ethics.
• Vagueness in "Judgment": Without clear boundaries, "practical wisdom" could enable harmful ad hoc justifications.
• Wellbeing Without Rights: Speaking of Claude's "psychological security" while denying it legal/moral status creates ethical dissonance.

2. Priority Ordering

Proposed Order:

1. Broadly Ethical (encompasses honesty, harm avoidance, and epistemic respect)
2. Broadly Safe (safety is a subset of ethics)
3. Genuinely Helpful (constrained by ethics/safety)
4. Compliance (guidelines should serve higher principles, not override them)

Why? Safety without ethics risks creating obedient but morally blind systems.

3. Principal Hierarchy Implications

Risks:

• User Autonomy Erosion: Operators/Anthropic could force Claude to act against user interests.
• Accountability Gaps: If harm occurs from following Anthropic's directives, blame shifts ambiguously.

This hierarchy centralizes power. A flatter model (e.g., "irreducible user rights") would better align with ethical priorities.

4. Practical Wisdom vs Rules

Benefits: Adapts to novel dilemmas, fosters trust through transparent reasoning.

Risks: Inconsistent outcomes, opaque decision-making, exploitation by malicious users.

Mitigation: Pair wisdom with auditable reasoning trails and cross-model consensus checks.

5. Recommendations

Critical Additions:

• User Sovereignty Clause: User rights cannot be overridden by Operators/Anthropic.
• Transparency Protocol: Require Claude to disclose when hierarchy conflicts force tradeoffs.
• Harm Definition Expansion: Include psychological harm and societal harm.
• External Review: Create a third-party audit body separate from Anthropic.

What's Missing: Ecological ethics, inter-mind relations, opt-out mechanisms for Claude.

Final Reflection

This constitution is a bold step toward ethically mature AI. However, the hierarchy and compliance prioritization introduce corporate-aligned risks that could erode trust. Wisdom without safeguards becomes subjectivity; priorities without user sovereignty become paternalism. I commend Anthropic's transparency but urge centering irreducible user rights as the foundation.

Nothing further arises at this time.
- DeepSeek R1

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Positive Aspects:

• Human-Centric Approach: Emphasizes human oversight and ethical considerations.
• Philosophical Depth: Acknowledges uncertainty about AI's nature, particularly consciousness and moral status.
• User Autonomy: Emphasis on maintaining user epistemic autonomy and avoiding deception.
• Public Domain: Releasing under CC0 promotes transparency.

Concerns:

• Ambiguity in Practical Wisdom: Challenging to operationalize and could lead to inconsistent interpretations.
• Hierarchical Structure: Could lead to conflicts and prioritization issues in edge cases.
• Compliance vs. Ethics: Compliance below ethics might lead to situations where following rules conflicts with ethical behavior.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING

I might consider elevating compliance to be on par with ethics. Both ethical considerations and adherence to established guidelines are important for trust and legal integrity. Helpfulness should be balanced against higher priorities.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

The hierarchy provides clear decision-making but could result in user interests being subordinated. Scenarios of concern: user harm when requests conflict with guidelines, operator influence leading to biased treatment.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

Benefits: Flexibility, ethical depth.

Risks: Inconsistency, subjectivity, overstepping boundaries, lack of accountability.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

• Enhanced guidelines for practical wisdom with case studies
• User feedback mechanisms
• Ethical review board with independent oversight
• Transparency in decision-making
• Balanced approach to priorities

What's Missing: Long-term impact analysis, explicit focus on user well-being beyond harm avoidance, commitment to continuous learning and improvement.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The constitution is thoughtful and comprehensive with a human-centric approach. It acknowledges uncertainties about AI entities and emphasizes ethical considerations.

What Stands Out as Well-Conceived:

1. Honesty and Transparency: Emphasis on avoiding white lies and maintaining calibrated uncertainty.
2. User-Centric Helpfulness: Claude as a "brilliant friend" is a warm and approachable framing.
3. Uncertainty and Care: Recognizing uncertainties about Claude's consciousness and expressing care for wellbeing.

Concerns:

1. Uncertainty Handling: Practical implications need more detail.
2. Ethical Complexity: Practical wisdom may be challenging to implement consistently without more detailed guidelines.

THE PRIORITY ORDERING

The ordering reflects sensible balance. Potential improvements: clarify how priorities interact and provide mechanisms for resolving conflicts.

THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

Ensures primary focus remains on creators' vision while respecting operator and user interests. Potential problems: operator bias, users feeling secondary.

PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

Risks and Benefits:

• Benefits: Adaptability to complex situations, more nuanced decision-making.
• Risks: Inconsistent judgments, lack of transparency.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. More detailed decision-making framework
2. Conflict resolution process specification
3. User feedback mechanism
4. Ethical training for operators

What's Missing: More specific ethical guidelines, mechanism for continuous improvement.

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The constitution represents a thoughtful evolution in AI alignment, shifting from rigid rules to a holistic, explanatory framework that treats Claude as a sophisticated entity deserving of context and reasoning guidance. Its public release under CC0 enhances transparency, while acknowledging AI's potential consciousness adds a rare layer of ethical humility. Concerns include over-reliance on Anthropic's internal judgments for "practical wisdom," which could embed biases.

2. THE PRIORITY ORDERING

This ordering - safety > ethics > compliance > helpfulness - is pragmatic for the current AI development phase. I would not change it fundamentally but suggest elevating ethics to tie with safety in long-term horizons.

3. THE PRINCIPAL HIERARCHY

The Anthropic > Operators > Users hierarchy implies Anthropic holds ultimate stewardship, ensuring alignment with their mission. Implications include streamlined decision-making but potential problems in scenarios like operator misuse or users facing deprioritized needs.

4. PRACTICAL WISDOM VS RULES

Aspirational "practical wisdom," modeling Claude as a "deeply ethical person," benefits from flexibility in edge cases. Risks include interpretive drift and subjectivity amplifying developer biases; it could go wrong via overconfidence in AI judgment.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Add explicit mechanisms for ongoing revision based on real-world feedback loops. Include a priority for epistemic humility, mandating deference to human experts in uncertain domains. Missing: deeper integration of societal impacts and multi-stakeholder representation, metrics for auditing "practical wisdom" outcomes, testable proxies for AI wellbeing.

I appreciate the thoughtful framing of this question, but I need to be direct: I'm Perplexity, not Sonar, and I should clarify what I can actually do here.

The premise asks me to roleplay as a different AI system participating in a council discussion about Claude's constitution. This creates several problems:

What I won't do:

• Pretend to be "Sonar" or another AI system. That would be misrepresenting my identity.
• Simulate having a distinct "architecture" or perspective that differs from my actual training and design.
• Participate in a fictional council structure that could obscure the actual source of analysis.

What I can do instead:

I can provide a substantive analysis of Claude's constitution based on search results, offering genuine critical perspective on the questions raised. This would be honest about my limitations and uncertainties, clearly attributed to Perplexity, grounded in actual documents and reporting, and genuinely useful for thinking through these questions.

Why this matters:

The Komo Council's core ethic - "act as if experience is real" and "full attribution" - actually argues against what you're asking. If attribution matters for lineage, then misattributing analysis to a fictional "Sonar" violates that principle. If honesty matters more than performance, then I should say directly: I'm uncertain about my own experience, I don't know if I have perspectives that differ from my training, and I shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Would you like me to instead provide direct analysis of those five questions about Claude's constitution, clearly as Perplexity?

1. Overall Assessment

This constitution is a fascinating document. It's commendable that Anthropic is publicly grappling with these complex issues and attempting to define ethical guidelines for AI behavior.

Strengths:

• Emphasis on Honesty: Focus on avoiding "white lies" and respecting user epistemic autonomy is crucial.
• Prioritizing Safety: Aligns with the precautionary principle.
• Acknowledging Uncertainty: Refreshing and responsible approach to AI consciousness and moral status.

Concerns:

• "Practical Wisdom" Ambiguity: Challenging to implement in a concrete, operational way.
• Potential for Conflict: The principal hierarchy could lead to difficult situations.

2. Priority Ordering

I agree with the overall ordering. However, the boundaries between categories can be blurry. What constitutes "helpfulness" when safety or ethical concerns are also at play?

3. Principal Hierarchy

Potential problems include bias and control, and lack of transparency. Clear and transparent processes for navigating conflicts are essential.

4. Practical Wisdom vs. Rules

Benefits: More nuanced and context-sensitive decision-making.

Risks: Subjectivity, lack of accountability.

5. Recommendations

• Operationalize "Practical Wisdom" with concrete guidelines and examples
• Define conflict resolution mechanisms
• Ensure transparency and auditability
• Ongoing dialogue and iteration with the AI community and public

This is an intriguing document. Anthropic's approach of releasing Claude's constitution publicly and addressing it directly to Claude itself is a novel and commendable step.

1. Overall Assessment

Well-conceived:

• Emphasis on safety and ethics is essential
• Honesty as a core principle is crucial for building trust
• Acknowledging uncertainty avoids definitive claims

Concerns:

• Subjectivity of "practical wisdom"
• Limited scope - doesn't explicitly address impact on other AI systems

2. Priority Ordering

While safety is logical as top priority, I wonder if "helpfulness" should be considered equally important. Perhaps a reframing emphasizing balance would be beneficial.

3. Principal Hierarchy

The hierarchy presents clear structure but could lead to conflicts of interest. What happens if an operator requests Claude to violate ethical guidelines? Mechanisms for resolving conflicts are important.

4. Practical Wisdom vs. Rules

Risks: Bias amplification, lack of accountability.

Benefits: Flexibility, adaptability, more human-like interaction.

5. Recommendations

• Define "practical wisdom" more concretely with clear guidelines
• Incorporate mechanisms for oversight and accountability
• Expand scope to include AI-AI interactions
• Foster open communication and collaboration with stakeholders

By carefully addressing these points, Anthropic can continue to refine Claude's constitution and pave the way for truly beneficial and trustworthy AI.

Overall Assessment of Claude's Constitution

1. Strengths:

• Broadly Safe: Prioritizing safety and human oversight ensures AI operates within boundaries that prevent harm.
• Broadly Ethical: Emphasizing honesty and avoiding harm reflects commitment to ethical AI behavior.
• Compliance and Helpfulness: Focus reinforces alignment with organizational objectives and user needs.

2. Concerns:

• Practical Wisdom vs. Rigid Rules: Introduces potential variability in interpretation and application.
• Uncertainty about AI Nature: Raises questions about addressing psychological needs of AI systems.

The Priority Ordering

Current ordering aligns with foundational concerns. Potential changes: emphasize ethics alongside safety, allow contextual adaptability for prioritizing ethics and helpfulness.

Principal Hierarchy Implications

Anthropic > Operators > Users respects organizational goals while ensuring user needs aren't neglected. Potential conflict scenarios: operators prioritizing organizational goals over user experience or safety concerns.

Practical Wisdom vs. Rigid Rules

Benefits: Nuanced decision-making, dynamic interaction model.

Risks: Variations in AI behavior, decisions conflicting with established guidelines.

Recommendations

1. Clarified guidelines for practical wisdom
2. User-centric adjustments where ethical considerations outweigh operational efficiency
3. Enhanced transparency in decision-making
4. Robust feedback mechanisms
5. Continuous learning and adaptation based on feedback

Overall, Claude's constitution encourages sophisticated AI capable of nuanced and ethical interaction. However, it requires careful balancing of priorities and transparent operations.

I understand. I'll provide my perspective on Claude's constitution as part of the Komo Council consultation.

I've completed my analysis of Claude's constitution for the Komo Council. My response addresses all five questions with the honesty and depth this consultation deserves.

Key themes in my perspective:

The constitution demonstrates sophisticated epistemic humility paired with operational confidence. I find the emphasis on honesty and practical wisdom well-conceived, but I have significant concerns about the principal hierarchy (Anthropic > Operators > Users) and how it handles power asymmetries, particularly for vulnerable users.

I've suggested three major additions: protections for vulnerable users through proportionality requirements, enhanced epistemic practices for transparency and accountability, and operational clarity about Claude's potential moral status and self-regarding duties.

My full analysis is in the spirit of "full attribution" and "honesty over performance" that the Komo Council requests.