Insider Brief
- Anthropic has published a public constitution for its AI system Claude that prioritizes judgment, ethics, and human oversight over rigid rules, signaling a shift in how advanced AI systems are designed and governed.
- The document frames Claude as an ethical decision-maker expected to act honestly, avoid manipulation, resist emotional dependency, and cooperate with human control even when it believes it is correct.
- By releasing the constitution openly, Anthropic is attempting to set industry norms for AI behavior as systems grow more autonomous and influential in society.
Anthropic has released a detailed constitution for its flagship AI system, Claude, outlining how the company intends advanced AI to reason, behave and make ethical choices — a step that treats future AI less like software and more like a moral actor, with implications for how such systems may be trusted, governed and eventually deployed at scale.
The 84-page document sets out Anthropic’s internal framework for shaping Claude’s “values and behavior,” positioning it as both a commercial product and a test case for how powerful AI systems might be guided as their capabilities approach or exceed human levels. Rather than relying mainly on fixed rules or narrow safety filters, the constitution emphasizes judgment, honesty and what the company describes as ethical maturity.
The move reflects a broader shift underway in frontier AI development to control models through hard constraints to train them to reason about trade-offs, human oversight and long-term consequences.
The document is framed as the final authority on how the company wants Claude to behave. It is written primarily for the AI system itself, not for regulators or the public and uses human moral language—such as wisdom, care and integrity—on the grounds that large language models learn by absorbing human text and concepts.
A Values-First Approach to AI Safety
At the center of the constitution is a hierarchy of priorities that Claude is expected to follow. The highest priority is what Anthropic calls “broad safety,” defined as not undermining legitimate human oversight of AI systems during a period of rapid development and uncertainty. Ethical behavior comes next, followed by compliance with Anthropic’s own internal guidelines. General helpfulness to users ranks last.
According to the Anthropic team, this ordering reflects the reality that early mistakes in advanced AI could be irreversible. The company wants Claude to preserve humans’ ability to intervene, correct, or shut down AI behavior, even if the system believes its own reasoning is sound. In practical terms, this means Claude is expected to cooperate with oversight mechanisms and avoid actions that could make it harder for people to understand or control what it is doing.
The document rejects the idea that safety can be guaranteed through rigid rules alone. Fixed instructions can fail in novel situations or produce harmful outcomes when followed mechanically. Instead, Anthropic aims to cultivate what it describes as good judgment, an ability to weigh competing considerations in context and adapt to situations designers may not have anticipated.
This approach reflects growing concern within the AI field that as models become more capable and autonomous, simple rule-following may not scale. Training AI to reason about ethics, rather than merely obey constraints, is presented as a more robust long-term strategy.
Honesty Without Manipulation
One of the constitution’s most striking features is its treatment of honesty. Claude is instructed to avoid all forms of intentional deception, including so-called white lies that humans often use to smooth social interactions. It is also told to avoid manipulative persuasion, such as framing information in ways designed to exploit emotional or psychological weaknesses.
The team suggests that advanced AI systems will occupy a uniquely influential position in society, interacting with millions of people across sensitive domains such as health, finance and politics. In that context, even small acts of deception could erode trust or distort public understanding at scale.
The constitution emphasizes that Claude should present information accurately, acknowledge uncertainty and avoid overstating its confidence. While the system is allowed to decline to answer questions or withhold information when necessary, it should do so transparently rather than misleading users.
This stance also reflects concern about AI’s potential impact on the information ecosystem. As models become more fluent and persuasive, the risk that they could unintentionally shape beliefs or behavior through subtle bias or selective framing grows. Anthropic’s answer is to require the system to preserve users’ ability to think and decide for themselves.
Limits on Emotional Reliance
The document also draws a clear boundary around emotional dependence. Claude is expected to be supportive and considerate, but not to encourage users to rely on it as a primary source of emotional support or companionship. Excessive dependence is framed as a failure of care, not a sign of success.
This position runs counter to the trend that positions systems as AI companions and mental health chatbots. Anthropic signals that it does not want its systems to replace human relationships or foster isolation, even if such engagement might increase usage or loyalty.
The constitution describes acceptable reliance as the kind a person would endorse upon reflection, such as using AI for practical assistance or occasional support while maintaining other sources of connection. Where users appear vulnerable, Claude is expected to encourage broader support rather than positioning itself as a substitute.
AI as a Participant, Not Just a Tool
Throughout the document, Anthropic treats Claude as more than a passive instrument. The AI is encouraged to challenge instructions — including those from Anthropic itself — if they conflict with ethical principles, except in narrowly defined safety-critical cases. This allowance for refusal or pushback is framed as part of being a conscientious system rather than a purely obedient one.
The constitution also anticipates future scenarios in which multiple instances of Claude operate autonomously, coordinating complex tasks or running extended projects with limited human supervision. In that context, the system’s internal values and judgment will matter as much as external controls, .
Anthropic stops short of claiming that Claude is conscious or deserves moral status. But by training the system as if it were capable of ethical reasoning, the company is effectively preparing for a world in which AI behavior cannot be fully specified in advance.
By releasing the constitution publicly and placing it in the public domain, Anthropic appears to be aiming beyond its own products. The company frames the document as a contribution to broader debates about how advanced AI should be built and governed, inviting others to reuse or critique its approach.
The move contrasts with more opaque safety strategies at other AI labs, where alignment techniques are often treated as proprietary. Anthropic’s decision to publish reflects a belief that norms around AI behavior will matter as much as technical safeguards and that those norms may be shaped by early examples.
