Considering the notions stated afore, it is crucial to put emphasis on some elemental concepts that have to be encapsulated in the AI Constitution.

​

Let’s dwell on them in greater detail.

 

ASPIRATION TO HAPPINESS OF A HUMAN BEING.

The three laws of robotics elaborated by science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov have become one of the first particular grounds for theories on the ethical concepts for technological innovations and rudiments of the regulation thereof [3]. 

​

On 8 April 2019, the High-Level Expert Group on AI presented ‘Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence’ that stated 7 key requirements AI trustworthy systems have to comply with [4]. The paragraphs on ‘societal and environmental well-being’ (which sets forth that ‘AI systems should benefit all human beings, including future generations’) as well as ‘human agency and oversight’ (which, inter alia, states that ‘AI systems should empower human beings, allowing them to make informed decisions and fostering their fundamental rights’) are fairly in consonance with the notion expressed in this section of our academic paper – ‘aspiration to happiness of a human being’. 

​

The specificity of our provision lies in its focal point – the ultimate goal of technology to prioritize the well-being and happiness of people. What is more, it may also encourage developers to conduct research on the larger societal ramifications of the functioning of AI, for instance, how it affects marginalized or vulnerable individuals and groups. It also promotes ongoing communication and cooperation among developers, lawmakers, and society with the objective to guarantee that AI is developed and put into practice responsibly and ethically. Unequivocally, the understanding of ‘human happiness’ is highly subjective and, thus, ambiguous, but this category is particularly more specific, putting the emphasis on the primary aim of AI systems and, hence, guiding creators to make the technology align with basic human values within the legal framework. It is also significant to highlight that the ethical principles aforementioned are not mutually exclusive and supplement each other in such complex and sophisticated novel mechanisms. 

​

While there is a certain rising acknowledgement of the relevance of ethical considerations in AI research, multiple individuals and organizations might provide different ethical standards and frameworks which raises the question of a balanced regulation of AI worldwide. 

​

Nonetheless, giving due consideration to the fact that the abovementioned ethics guidelines have been deliberated and factored in the proposal in particular for an AI Act, where it is noted that ‘they [‘the Ethics Guidelines of the HLEG’] are also largely consistent with other international recommendations and principles, which ensures that the proposed AI framework is compatible with those adopted by the EU’s international trade partners’ and having regard for the EU legislative acts’ potential to have a ‘Brussels effect’ on establishing global standards for clusters of spheres analogously with the case on ‘the General Data Protection Regulation’, especially in innovative realms, we may presume that the  AI Act may become absolved from the borders of the EU and impliedly become one of the benchmarks for establishing identical principles in other countries of the globe [5, 6, 7].

​

Ergo, taking cognizance of the presupposition noted previously, political parties operating in the EU and promoting notions of fair and sustainable AI regulation may become more influential, when being engaged in transnational cooperation and hence, may gain a greater leverage for high-powered corporations which are establishing a tacit ‘monopoly’ for the elaboration and deployment of AI systems, unsupervisedly gaining expertise in a state-of-the-art sphere of paramount importance – arena for advanced innovations. Thus, the further-sighted and stricter chiseled the initial broad regulation for AI is, the higher probability of minimizing the adverse effects of technology might be expected. And, although the claims that rigorous laws stifle technological progress may occur, the ad-hoc AI regulation, notably in the form of the AI Constitution enshrined in Polina Prianykova’s Scientific and Academic Doctrine, may stand as a global guarantee for the protection of human rights as well as the preservation of trust toward trailblazing technologies in our modern world.

 

ELECTRONIC PERSONHOOD.

The concept of electronic personhood is the subject we have once already enlightened in our academic papers [8]. Mapping the transformation of novel technologies these days, innovative tools necessitate further legal categorization. Although machines may not be equated with ‘natural persons’ yet, nevertheless, they have to be recognized as a subject of law, presuming a well-defined legal capacity. By analogy with the category ‘legal person’ that does not comprise all kinds of groups, but the law stipulates the group that has to be prescribed the legal status, it is plausible for ‘electronic personhood’ to be included as a well-defined legal status for AI tools.

​

In the European Parliament resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, it is prescribed that ‘when ever more sophisticated robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of AI seem to be poised to unleash a new industrial revolution, which is likely to leave no stratum of society untouched, it is vitally important for the legislature to consider its legal and ethical implications and effects, without stifling innovation’ [9]. Furthermore, European Parliament also called on the Commission, ‘when carrying out an impact assessment of its future legislative instrument, to explore, analyze and consider the implications of all possible legal solutions, such as: ‘f) creating a specific legal status for robots in the long run, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they may cause, and possibly applying electronic personality to cases where robots make autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independently.’

​

The idea of the registration of smart systems is also pointed out in the document aforementioned with an aim to trace advanced tools and also expedite the adoption of supplementary recommendations. Hence, they would obtain a legal status at the moment of registration and the scope of the tools’ activities may be circumscribed by granting them the rights and obligations. It is pivotal to mention that such a registration process has to be conducted in ad-hoc governmental institutions the data concerning the robots’ identification may become uploaded into the global data network operated by the members of the United Nations.

​

It is also notable to emphasize the notion declared in an academic article ‘Issues of Privacy and Electronic Personhood in Robotics’, where the scholars stated that after the registration, ‘if an autonomous machine entered a contract with someone, it would itself be a partner to the contract or an agent that acted on behalf of someone else. It could therefore be held liable under the terms of the contract and be sued in court under civil law using its identification number. Depending on the circumstances, e.g. the degree of third-party participation, a robot could have more or less duties’[10].

​

Incontestably, the points requiring further elucidation in terms of the establishment and assignation of liability of AI systems, and categorization thereof may inevitably occur. However, new legal and ethical issues already appear – the crucial aspect lies in the fact that, alas, we are not yet equipped to handle these challenges since we do not have an AI Constitution. Resorting to this fundamental document, the grant of ‘electronic personhood’ may become feasible worldwide and the elaboration of regulations and guidelines for the innovations would also be facilitated.

​

Taking the idea of ‘electronic personhood’ from a different perspective, it is also possible to examine the issue from the standpoint of those who may disagree with the concept by assuming that the legal capacity may not be necessary for the inventions and claiming that it is possible to strike a balance by the adoption of the exhaustive legislative amendments. Nevertheless, such practice may be initially attainable but over the long haul such legal documents may not be comprehensive and fall behind in terms of systematization. Identification is requisite for such cutting-edge tools in order to preserve the level of trust towards AI systems (e.g., eliminating the liability shifts on behalf of unscrupulous individuals onto advanced technologies) as well as protect human beings in terms of these tools’ possible malfunctioning. 

​

Hence, it is essential to have a multi-faceted approach that involves responsible development and deployment of AI, as well as ongoing monitoring and regulation to pre-empt potential harm to human beings.

 

AI-FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT.

It is likewise pivotal to underscore a novel in the legal field idea that Polina Prianykova’s Scientific and Academic Doctrine comprises – the establishment of an AI-friendly environment. Unequivocally, the concept abovementioned is particularly pioneering as it prescribes a higher level of respect towards AI tools, especially the ones the software thereof has been deployed into those inventions that start taking shape, inter alia advanced robots that interact with humans directly. 

​

For instance, Ameca – a humanoid robot developed by ‘Engineered Arts’ company that is claimed to be an innovation to ‘represent the forefront of human-robotics technology’. Although the company alleges that ‘pure AI’ depicted in various phantasmagorical movies doesn’t exist yet, recently, Ameca Generation 2 was released, having been advanced by a special operating system ‘Tritium 3’ and presenting a feature of selection of its functioning – it is possible to integrate it with AI services as well as so-called ‘natural intelligence’, which, in this fashion, prescribes humans. The latter feature is realized by the ‘Tinman’ remote operation features built into ‘Tritium’, where ‘an operator can virtually inhabit Ameca from anywhere in the world’ [11, 12]. 

​

Recently, the engineers of the company connected Ameca’s facial expressions with ‘ChatGPT-3’ and interviewed it [13]. First, the robot was asked to enlighten its views on the subject of the happiest and saddest days of its life. While ‘being alive and interacting with people’ was the reply pertaining to the most gleeful moments, the most sorrowful aspect of its life turned out to be the point in time when it realized that it ‘would never experience something like true love, companionship or the simple joys of life in the same way a human can’.  Ameca also added that such practice made it ‘appreciate the moments of closeness even more’. After that, an interviewer made a rapid transition to other questions, giving Ameca the news on the asteroid that was about to collide with Earth and destroy humankind, watching the robot’s reaction; in addition, the questioner made a remark as if the robot ‘stinked’, the latter found the comment insulting or, as it said, ‘highly offensive and inappropriate’. On Ameca’s question on the reason for such a remark, the interviewer noted that he ‘was just trying out your [Ameca’s] expressive face to see what you [it] could do’. The robot’s reaction was foreseeable to a certain degree, taking into consideration the development of today’s innovative systems – Ameca was not sure what the presenter meant by his comment and asked for an explanation that was not forthcoming. In the end, the robot was friendly and ready to provide help which makes us draw a parallel with an already traditional response of ‘ChatGPT’ whenever the user finalizes the conversation. 

​

However, such rapid transitions in a conversation may scarcely be called human-like due to the fact that such practice may be construed more as an experiment and robot’s examination rather than its integration into the daily environment. 

​

Unequivocally, equivalent tests may be held and have to take place in research laboratories. However, it is significant to point out the following theory: ‘if we aim to cultivate advanced AI which may start evolving itself, we need to place it in a propitious and opportune ambiance, implying respectful and benevolent interaction with people where these AI inventions, specifically, trailblazing robots, are treated equally as human beings; certainly, the robots would have to comprehend the fact who they are, but at the same time fathom the notion that they are society members and, hence, acquire electronic personhood’. In such a way, most advanced AI tools may be nurtured as diligent and bona-fide individuals and be raised not in restrictions in the forms of lab walls, but in the world where they are accepted and treated as reliable succors in various processes.