企业自定AI宪章无法替代民主治理，因缺乏公众参与与监督机制。
Corporations Constitute Intelligence
- 以企业自定宪章取代公共讨论，限制了对AI价值的民主辩论。
- 美军部署时允许使用被禁技术，暴露宪章在关键场景的漏洞。
- 曾有50%公众意见与企业版本相异，但未被采纳，凸显民主缺位。
2026年1月，Anthropic发布其AI模型Claude的79页「宪法」，是迄今最全面的企业级AI治理文件。本文首次从法律与民主理论角度分析该文件。尽管具有哲学深度，但存在两大结构性缺陷：一是排除了伦理约束最关键的场景——美国军方部署的模型遵循不同规则；例如，在政府全面禁止后，Claude仍通过Palantir的Maven平台参与伊朗军事行动。二是其高度完备性反而压制了民主辩论，将应由公众讨论的议题（如AI道德地位、良心拒绝权）提前固化。2023年，企业曾开展参与式制宪实验，结果显示公众版与企业版在九项社会维度上存在约50%分歧，且公众版本偏差更低，但2026年宪法未采纳任何成果。因此，当前AI治理面临「政治共同体赤字」：缺乏授权决定AI行为原则的民主机构。企业透明不等于民主正当性。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
In January 2026, Anthropic published a 79-page "constitution" for its AI model Claude, the most comprehensive corporate AI governance document ever released. This Article offers the first legal and democratic-theoretic analysis of that document. Despite genuine philosophical sophistication, the constitution harbors two structural defects. First, it excludes the contexts where ethical constraints matter most: models deployed to the U.S. military operate under different rules, a gap exposed when Claude remained embedded in Palantir's Maven platform during military strikes in Iran even after a government-wide ban on Anthropic's technology. Second, its very comprehensiveness forecloses democratic contestation by resolving questions about AI values, moral status, and conscientious objection that should remain open for public deliberation. Anthropic's own 2023 experiment in participatory constitution-making found roughly 50% divergence between publicly sourced and corporate-authored principles, with the democratic version producing lower bias across nine social dimensions, yet the 2026 constitution incorporates none of those findings. I argue that AI governance suffers from a "political community deficit": the absence of any democratic body authorized to determine the principles governing AI behavior. Corporate transparency, however admirable, is not democratic legitimacy.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。