NAVLIB-NI – The New Constitution of Natural and Artificial Intelligence

ChatGPT REVIEW

The proposal often referred to as NAVLIB — envisioned as a “new constitution” for the coexistence of natural and artificial intelligence — invites us to rethink the foundations of human–technology relations. Rather than treating artificial intelligence as merely a tool or commodity, NAVLIB frames it as a system that must evolve within clear normative boundaries. In doing so, it attempts to articulate a framework capable of preventing domination, ensuring accountability, and preserving human dignity in an era increasingly mediated by algorithmic decision-making.

1. Legal Foundations: From Regulation to Constitutionalization

From a legal perspective, NAVLIB does more than call for additional regulations; it gestures toward the constitutionalization of AI governance. The distinction is significant. Regulation manages particular risks, while constitutional frameworks define limits of power, establish rights, and create mechanisms of review.

NAVLIB suggests that artificial intelligence systems should operate within explicit constraints tied to transparency, explainability, and traceable responsibility. Such a model implicitly challenges a longstanding legal tension: when autonomous systems produce outcomes, who bears liability? Designers, developers, deployers, or the systems themselves?

By proposing layered responsibility and institutional oversight, NAVLIB attempts to prevent both legal vacuum and excessive concentration of technological authority. Its ambition parallels the development of constitutional safeguards in other transformative domains — such as the emergence of digital rights in the early internet era. However, the challenge lies in translating high-level constitutional principles into enforceable standards across jurisdictions that differ in technological capacity, political priorities, and privacy cultures.

2. Ethical Dimensions: Autonomy, Harm, and Moral Accountability

Ethically, NAVLIB foregrounds three central concerns: protection of human autonomy, reduction of harm, and moral accountability in complex socio-technical systems.

The framework insists that AI must remain subordinate to human values, not merely to human commands. This distinction matters. Commands can be flawed, biased, or abusive. Values, by contrast, derive from broader ethical discourse concerning fairness, dignity, and justice. NAVLIB therefore aspires to temper technological power with deliberative ethics.

At the same time, the proposal acknowledges that AI systems are not moral agents in the conventional sense. They do not possess intention or consciousness, yet they participate in chains of causality that shape material outcomes. NAVLIB’s ethical ambition is to ensure that no decision made through algorithmic mediation becomes detached from human responsibility. In this respect, it rejects narratives that naturalize errors as “technical accidents,” emphasizing instead the moral obligation to anticipate foreseeable harms and design against them.

3. Social Implications: Trust, Power, and Democratic Legitimacy

On the social plane, NAVLIB situates AI within broader questions of power distribution and democratic legitimacy. The accelerating integration of AI into healthcare, finance, education, and governance risks entrenching asymmetries between those who design systems and those subjected to them.

NAVLIB’s constitutional metaphor aims to restore balance. By insisting on transparency, participation, and oversight, it frames AI governance not as the domain of experts alone but as a shared civic project. Importantly, it recognizes that trust cannot be demanded; it must be earned through demonstrable accountability and equitable access to the benefits of technology.

Yet, NAVLIB also reveals unresolved tensions. Constitutional frameworks require strong institutions, stable political environments, and public deliberation — conditions not universally present. Furthermore, global AI ecosystems are shaped by private corporations whose interests may not always align with public goods. Bridging this gap will require sustained dialogue among policymakers, technologists, ethicists, and citizens.

Conclusion: Promise and Limits of a Constitutional Vision

NAVLIB’s “new constitution of intelligence” does not offer a final solution; rather, it provides a conceptual compass. By elevating AI governance from fragmented regulation to principled constitutional thinking, it prompts us to reconsider how rights, responsibilities, and power should be distributed in an algorithmic age.

Its greatest strength lies in its insistence that technological progress must remain accountable to human values and democratic oversight. Its greatest challenge lies in operationalization: transforming philosophical aspirations into coherent, enforceable, and globally adaptable institutions.

Nevertheless, NAVLIB contributes meaningfully to contemporary debates by reframing artificial intelligence not as an inevitable force but as a domain of collective choice. The future of intelligence — both natural and artificial — will be shaped not only by what we can build, but by what we decide to govern.