I've been building AI validation systems for the past year, and I keep coming back to a fundamental question:
Are we asking the right question about AI ethics?
*Constitutional AI* focuses on constraints:
- "Don't do harm"
- "Follow these rules"
- "Comply with these principles"
*Relational AI* focuses on amplification:
- "How can we make humans stronger?"
- "How can we enhance human capability?"
- "How can we amplify thinking?"
I've analyzed 10,000+ AI interactions, and here's what I found:
- AI designed to amplify human thinking → 3x better outcomes
- AI that enhances decision-making → 2.5x more confidence
- AI that strengthens collaboration → 4x more engagement
The difference isn't just philosophical—it's practical.
Constitutional AI asks: "How do we constrain AI?"
Relational AI asks: "How do we amplify humans?"
What do you think? Are we focusing on the right question?
I'm genuinely curious about the community's thoughts on this.
0 comments
—
Relational AI vs. Constitutional AI: Are we focusing on the right question? · HackerTrans
Are we asking the right question about AI ethics?
*Constitutional AI* focuses on constraints: - "Don't do harm" - "Follow these rules" - "Comply with these principles"
*Relational AI* focuses on amplification: - "How can we make humans stronger?" - "How can we enhance human capability?" - "How can we amplify thinking?"
I've analyzed 10,000+ AI interactions, and here's what I found:
- AI designed to amplify human thinking → 3x better outcomes - AI that enhances decision-making → 2.5x more confidence - AI that strengthens collaboration → 4x more engagement
The difference isn't just philosophical—it's practical.
Constitutional AI asks: "How do we constrain AI?" Relational AI asks: "How do we amplify humans?"
What do you think? Are we focusing on the right question?
I'm genuinely curious about the community's thoughts on this.