The world’s first AI constitution—and why it should make the world sit up and take notice

Anthropic describes it as a living document. That alone should give us pause. Technology companies have long published principles on ethical AI. What makes this constitution unprecedented is its operational role. The document is not written merely for human readers; it is written for the AI itself. Anthropic states that Claude is trained to internalize this constitution through reinforcement learning, self-critique and preference shaping. In other words, the constitution is technically executable.

This marks a clear departure from the past. Earlier frameworks relied on external moderation—filters, policies and post-hoc enforcement. Anthropic’s approach embeds values in the system. The constitution becomes the highest authority governing Claude’s behaviour, superseding ad-hoc rules or context-specific instructions.

Perhaps the most striking assertion in the document is of Claude being a “moral agent in training." Anthropic explicitly rejects the idea that its AI is a neutral tool, but argues that powerful AI systems must be shaped to exercise judgement, much like humans do.

The constitution prioritizes four core values in this order: Broad safety; broad ethical behaviour; compliance with guidelines; and helpfulness.

This hierarchy is telling. Unlike most AI systems that place usefulness or compliance first, Anthropic elevates safety and ethics above all else. The model is instructed to avoid manipulation, sycophancy, emotional exploitation or deception, even when such behaviour might increase engagement or user satisfaction. In an industry driven by optimization metrics, this is a significant philosophical choice.

The document is unapologetically anthropomorphic. It speaks of Claude’s ‘judgment,’ ‘honesty,’ ‘character’ and even its ‘well-being.’ While Anthropic is careful to state that Claude is not human and may not possess moral status, it nonetheless treats the question as open and worthy of consideration.

This tension lies at the heart of this constitution. On one hand, AI is acknowledged as a mathematical system trained on data. On the other, it is expected to behave like a “deeply ethical person." This is not accidental. Anthropic argues that cultivating judgement is better than enforcing rigid rules in a complex and unpredictable world. Reassuring or unsettling, this is surely new.

Here is where this moment becomes politically significant. Constitutions are instruments of collective self-governance. They derive legitimacy from people, parliaments and public debate. Claude’s constitution, however, is authored, interpreted and revised by a private corporation. There is no electorate, judiciary or separation of powers.

As AI systems increasingly shape access to information, education, healthcare advice and even emotional support, the values encoded in such constitutions will have real-world consequences. Decisions about what is safe, ethical or harmful will no longer be abstract—they will influence millions of lives. This raises a big question: Should private companies be the sole authors of moral frameworks for systems that operate at societal scale?

India is well positioned to engage with this challenge. Our Constitution is explicitly described as a living document—one that balances individual liberty with collective responsibility. We understand, perhaps better than most other societies, that values evolve but must remain anchored in democratic legitimacy.

As India develops its own AI governance frameworks, the emergence of AI constitutions demands serious engagement. Not rejection, but scrutiny. Not fear, but participation.

Anthropic’s constitution may well be a responsible attempt to prevent harm in an age of powerful AI. But it should also serve as a wake-up call. The future of AI governance cannot be left to corporate constitutions alone. It must involve states, courts, citizens and global institutions. The age of constitutional machines has arrived. The question is whether human societies are ready to meet it with constitutional thinking of their own.

The author is director, Mrikal (AI/Data Center) and a young alumni member, Government Liaison Task Force, IIT Kharagpur. His X handle is @ipravinkaushal