What "AI Bill of Rights" are usually missing

Taking cues from James Madison and Isaiah Berlin

I recently came across the below “AI Bill of Rights” and I had some thoughts.

A "Bill of Rights" for the Age of AI

In short, there are 10 “rights” outlined herein but there are some serious structural weaknesses.

Right 1: Existential safety and peaceful coexistence

This right fails to define “AGI” which is vague, overly specific, and generally not interpretable in any legal or policy sense. The underlying fear here is “technology might kill us” but that is superseded by pretty much every civil society’s “right to life.” In my eyes, this is redundant, and looks more like science fiction (I got serious Dune vibes reading this one).

Right 2: Universal access and post-scarcity provisioning

This one suffers from some of the same hand-wavy sci-fi vibes as the first one. But, at the heart of it, the underlying promise is one of prosperity. Having studied social contracts in the context of “What the hell is AI going to do to society?” I would recommend simplifying and universalizing these first two “rights” into the simpler:

Adding in any techno-jargon immediately relegates the treatise to science fiction. However, when you study social contracts, the general rule of thumb is “obey the state and in exchange for sacrificing some freedoms and fulfilling certain obligations, you will get more peace and prosperity”

Any “Bill of Rights” is fundamentally about coordinating power, and is a negotiation between the State and the People. Hence my framing.

Right 3: Cognitive and emotional sovereignty

This is already granted by freedom of speech and numerous other rights, so it looks redundant to me. Any civil society today respects this. Though, to be fair, plenty of technology platforms already engage in manipulation. But no on obligates you to interact with that technology.

Right 4: Digital, biological, and identity sovereignty

This one conflates two very different things—aspects extrinsic to the body and those intrinsic to the body. On the face of it, it is malformed. However, I do really appreciate the inclusion of the idea of bodily autonomy as a basic right. That has universal appeal. The brain is part of the body, as is the mind. It’s all biological.

So I would simplify right 3 and 4 as simply:

Things like identity and property rights should be parceled out into other rights.

Right 5: Access to and co-shaping of advanced AI

This right is superseded by democratic values. But it also infringes upon the property rights of the owners of AI. Property rights are foundational to all civil societies, so on that count, I would say this is malformed (or at least is dubious). However, the underlying value is that of inclusive institutions. There are two kinds of “rights” to think about:

1. Entitlement to

2. Freedom from

This kind of right is an entitlement style right, whereas the proposed bodily autonomy right is freedom from non-consensual manipulation. Conversely, the peace-and-prosperity right is an entitlement to a certain environment.

Right 6: Transparent, aligned, and accountable AI

This is also redundant in my view. It personifies a particular technology, and presupposes that “transparency” and “alignment” and “accountability” should be granted—but by whom? In general, transparency is a good thing, at least in the form of government. I would combine both rights 5 and 6 into something far simpler and focused on strengthening democracy as a whole:

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and democracy dies in darkness. This alternative right supersedes all technology and applies universally. Part of the bargain between the governed and the governors (whoever they happen to be, man or machine) promises transparency, which is the undergirding trait of accountability.

Right 7: Purpose, play, and self-actualization

This is redundant in any civil society and is included under bodily autonomy.

Right 8: Authentic relationships and social connections

Likewise, redundant and superseded by bodily autonomy.

Right 9: Intergenerational and planetary stewardship

This one is interesting, because as stated, it is not a right. It is a duty, an obligation. You don’t have a “right to stewardship” you have an obligation to stewardship. This reminds me of the Seventh Generation Rule of indigenous Americans—that decisions should take into account seven generations of descendants. But again, that is a duty of the tribal elders in that context.

This could be reframed to something simpler and more universal:

This implies the duty to careful stewardship. I agree that this is a good right to include, but it is not directly related to AI (which is actually a good thing).

Right 10: Consciousness exploration and flourishing

This is superseded by individual liberty and bodily autonomy.

---

Therefore, my simplified “AI Bill of Rights” (which is just expanded human rights) would go something like this:

1. “All humans have a right to Bodily Autonomy.” This covers everything from vaccinations to abortion to neural manipulation by implants. It would also include the right to terminate one’s own life (assisted suicide for instance). Again, this is technologically invariant—it does not rely on any governmental definition of AI or AGI, but extends to any technology, including implants and genetic engineering. Your body is your own to do with as you will.

2. “All humans have a right to Peace and Prosperity.” This converts the tacit social contract into explicit promise. From tribal chieftains to kings to presidents and even autocrats—the right to rule is legitimized by the provisioning of peace and prosperity for the subjects of the realm. It sets a cardinal direction, whether or not “AGI” exists or what kind of technology emerges.

3. “All humans have a right to Radically Transparent government.” This is perhaps the least defensible of my assertions, but it is aspirational. Transparency begets accountability. Russia, China, and North Korea are famously opaque. Generally speaking, the more free a nation is, the more transparent it is. Transparency also leads to prosperity through efficiency and cutting off corruption. If transparency is good, maybe more transparency is better? (If I seem tepid about this, I am. I don’t know that maximal transparency is a good thing). But this transparency of government would spill over to the will of the people, meaning that if people truly want transparent AI, they would get it.

4. “All humans have a right to a healthy, sustainable, viable planetary ecosystem.” This one could be obviated by “Peace and Prosperity” but at the same time, I think this satisfies the realization that “we only get one Earth” and we are approaching the ability to harm or heal our own planet. In previous eras, humanity lacked the technology to meaningfully deplete the planet except in very local scales (we extinguished several species with bows and arrows after all).

I’m no Kant or Voltaire, but this is what I would focus on for the next evolution of civilization.