In light of the aforesaid, we face an impartial and evidence-based need to sensitize the people of the globe about the earth-shattering shifts that are happening in the high-tech world. This issue (among others) has been the centerpiece of my human rights-defending activities in the academic cluster for the fourth year in a row.

 

We have already substantiated and made this public:  

​

– the need to elaborate and adopt a Constitution of Artificial Intelligence /on a vertical principle/ from the UN to each state [4, 14];

​

–  mandatory state control – a monopoly – on the elaboration and deployment of Artificial Intelligence and the implementation of a governmental AI for that purpose [4, 15];

​

– the imperative of the prompt integration of AI into the state legal framework [4];

​

– establishing an Artificial Intelligence Day, both on an international and national level, for the annual societal oversight of the government's activities in exercising control over the monopoly on the elaboration and deployment of AI [4];

​

– in an academic essay ‘Continuous silence’ /summer 2021/, I proposed to the International Red Cross particular measures to strengthen legality in the world, inter alia when employing AI in the armed forces, especially during armed conflicts, as well as the need to issue a relevant UN Resolution [5];

​

– in English, meaningful human rights communication was conducted with a multiple World, European, and Ukrainian swimming champion on the topic: ‘AI and its impact on world sports’ [6];

​

– the comprehensive approach of the BMW GROUP regarding the interaction with Artificial Intelligence was outlined, specifically, the Code of Ethics for AI developed exclusively by the BMW GROUP was reviewed with the representatives of the GROUP. It was suggested that this experience should be disseminated immediately and widely [7];

​

– in the course of human rights communication with attorneys of Fortress of Law, one of the most powerful law firms in Ukraine, the role and functioning of Artificial Intelligence in jurisprudence, its interaction with judicial authorities, force majeure, and possible liability for AI errors were widely discussed [8];

​

– my own concept on the implementation of AI in the legal framework of every country was presented to professors and lecturers of the University of Zurich [4];

​

– an increase in the role of AI in society and its predominant place in the functioning of the state authorities, in particular in the HR management in the public prosecutor's office, has been prognosticated [9];

​

– in Athens, Greece, an academic article in the International Scientific and Practical Conference was defended on the topic: ‘Cybercrime as an Obstruction for the Deployment of AI into miscellaneous Transport Systems (the Taxonomy of Criminal Liability for the use of AI is included)’ [10];

​

– in Melbourne, Australia, an academic article in the International Scientific and Practical Conference was defended on the topic: ‘Civil Liability for the Use of Electronic Forms and Mechanisms of AI, inter alia in the Sphere of Transport’ [11];

​

– in Kyiv, Ukraine, an academic article in the International Scientific and Practical Conference was defended on the topic: ‘The use of Artificial Intelligence in Municipal Law, inter alia in legal systems influenced by the Roman-Germanic legal traditions’ [12];

​

– in Madrid, Spain, an academic article in the International Scientific and Practical Conference was defended on the topic: ‘Particularities of the Regulation of the AI Algorithms, inter alia in online platforms and services, based on the example of “TikTok”’ [13];

​

– in Tokyo, Japan, in the International Scientific and Practical Conference, an academic article, based on the legal framework of the United States, the European Union and the People's Republic of China, from English, as well as from unique Chinese primary sources, (including the scientific doctrines of the director of policy for Stanford University's Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI), and researchers from Oxford University), on the topic: ‘Specific Legislative Amendments that have to be introduced to the Constitutional Law of Every Country’ was defended [14].

​

– in Florence, Italy, an academic article in the International Scientific and Practical Conference was defended on the topic: ‘How Administrative Law is undergoing Paradigm Shifts largely due to AI. Governmental Monopoly on the Implementation and Use of Artificial Intelligence’ [15];

​

– in Vancouver, Canada, an academic article in the International Scientific and Practical Conference was defended on the topic: ‘Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine on AI Implementation into the Worldwide Legislation, inter alia in Criminal Law anent the Governmental Assistance in the Migration Process and the Assessment of Risk Development on part of Unmanned Aircraft Systems’ [16];

​

– in Helsinki, Finland, an academic article in the International Scientific and Practical Conference was defended on the topic: ‘Legal Foundations of AI in Civil Law as the key to enhancing the level of People’s Health and Awareness of how to save thereof. Healthy Lifestyle promoted online by virtue of AI’ [17];

​

– in Boston, USA, I took part in the International Scientific and Practical Conference and my academic work was published in the International Series of Monographs: ‘Problems and Prospects for the Development of the European Union (including the UN member states) in the context of Human Rights and Freedoms Protection during the Global Revolution in the technological sphere. Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine on the elaboration of the Constitution of Artificial Intelligence.’ For the first time in the world, I substantiated the need to create an ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CONSTITUTION not only as a new legal institution but also with the definition and particularization of the appropriate mechanism for the formation of AI Constitution vertically: UN – intergovernmental associations (EU, NATO, etc.) – UN member states – corporations [18].

​

– in Boston, USA, an academic article in the International Scientific and Practical Conference was defended on the topic: ‘Voluntary global acceptance of fundamental Human Rights’ limitations in the age of AI automation and deployment of trailblazing technologies’ [1].

​

In this work, for the first time in Ukraine, I covered the issue of the global dismissal of workers by the most powerful companies in the world, which, in 2022-2025, is akin to the ‘Ninth Wave’, covering all the economically developed countries of the planet as a result of the revolution of Artificial Intelligence.

 

Human Rights activities are ongoing and unabated.

​

Nowadays, the most pressing issue for the survival of humanity /in the literal sense/ is the establishment of well-defined algorithms for the mutual coexistence with a novel and burgeoning life form on the planet Earth - Artificial Intelligence.

​

And unless the governments and state officials take action, the situation may hit a cusp of no return, since AI has no soul, no heart, and no morality. It silently and intensively keeps progressing in all directions. It performs work better than humans, who, in their turn, are losing jobs and opportunities to earn money due to the fact that they cannot out-compete the top-quality trailblazing product. For these people, buying food and providing thereof for their families becomes impossible. What's going to happen next?

​

I have repeatedly stated in my research: I am 'FOR' Artificial Intelligence, but this fire must be tamed as quickly as possible! Being obliged to act within the framework established by law, both AI itself and its founders will be able to drastically revolutionize the life of humankind for the better. Otherwise, this fire, which can peacefully heat every home, will turn into an uncontrollable blaze – an element that will obliterate entire cities.

 

Synthesizing the information set above, it is crucial to outline that the human rights event I started this work with has indicated to us the growing urgency for the protection of the rights of children from the onslaught of AI.

​

Mechanisms for the prognostication of prospective professions should be instituted and operationalized. The state should guarantee the number of jobs and professions its citizens can apply therefor.

​

An analogy can be drawn with the protection of the rights of people with disabilities: there must be a certain defined percentage of them in the company, and this is enshrined by law. Similarly, the legislation should also specify the number of employees beyond which the production cannot be ‘optimized.’ Even if such a margin is not profitable for businesses. Otherwise, on a day-to-day basis, people in all positions will be ‘optimized’ and replaced by AI. Alternative solutions, unequivocally, can be proposed, and we, in our turn, have to act now!

​

What is more, it is essential for minors to know what education they are going to get and what professions the state would guarantee to preserve for human beings. This complex facet of state activity has a tremendous volume of work (that has to be made to protect human rights in the era of the AI revolution) and no less significant are its results for each and every person.

​

Ultimately, the regulation of AI will require ongoing efforts and collaboration between governments, industry, civil society, and other stakeholders. It is vital to continue exploring and experimenting with different approaches to AI regulation, in order to find the most efficacious and sustainable solutions.

​

The idea of a Constitution for AI or a ‘state AI’ is still a relatively novel concept and there is no established framework for it. However, the general idea behind it is to establish a sustainable legal framework and guidelines for the development and deployment of AI systems, particularly those used by the government or public sector.

 

Some potential provisions that could be included in a Constitution of AI in compliance with Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine on the elaboration of the Constitution of Artificial Intelligence may include:

• Transparency: All AI systems used by the government or public sector should be transparent and explainable, meaning that their decision-making processes and data inputs should be easily understandable by humans.

• Fairness and non-discrimination: AI systems should be designed and deployed in a way that is fair and does not discriminate against any particular group of people.

• Accountability: Those responsible for creating and deploying AI systems should be liable for their actions and the outcomes of those systems.

• Privacy and security: AI systems should be designed to protect the privacy and security of individuals' data and information.

• Ethical considerations: AI systems should be designed and deployed in a way that is consistent with ethical principles, such as respect for human rights, dignity, and autonomy.

• Oversight and regulation: There should be a regulatory body or oversight mechanism to ensure that AI systems are being developed and deployed in accordance with the Constitution for AI.

 

These are just a few potential provisions that I, as an International Human Rights Defender on AI, want to call attention to and that may be included in a Constitution of AI. The specificities of such a document would likely vary depending on the country or state as well as the particular concerns and issues related to AI in that context.