Executive summary: The author argues that Civic A.I. in democracies faces a legitimacy and permission problem rather than merely a design problem, and contends that only systems that preserve human judgment, moral visibility, and democratic authority—while refusing agency or coercion—should be allowed to exist at all.
Key points:
The essay claims that most debates about Civic A.I. wrongly begin with design questions instead of the prior constitutional question of whether such systems should be permitted to operate near democratic judgment.
Drawing on Benjamin Franklin’s civic practice, the author frames democracy as requiring ongoing maintenance through non-coercive public works that improve shared visibility without centralizing authority.
The author proposes binding principles for Civic A.I., including non-agentic subordination to humans, visibility without surveillance, equal access to useful knowledge, and ongoing public revision with the option of abandonment.
The concept of “moral visibility” is presented as democratic infrastructure that clarifies structural conditions early enough for contestation without forcing decisions or narrowing legitimate disagreement.
The post argues that technical safety, alignment, or usefulness cannot authorize Civic A.I. deployment, and that systems must pass non-negotiable legitimacy gates such as democratic compatibility and non-dependence.
The author concludes that refusal to build certain Civic A.I. systems should be treated as civic success, not failure, when legitimacy and democratic governability cannot be maintained.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author argues that Civic A.I. in democracies faces a legitimacy and permission problem rather than merely a design problem, and contends that only systems that preserve human judgment, moral visibility, and democratic authority—while refusing agency or coercion—should be allowed to exist at all.
Key points:
The essay claims that most debates about Civic A.I. wrongly begin with design questions instead of the prior constitutional question of whether such systems should be permitted to operate near democratic judgment.
Drawing on Benjamin Franklin’s civic practice, the author frames democracy as requiring ongoing maintenance through non-coercive public works that improve shared visibility without centralizing authority.
The author proposes binding principles for Civic A.I., including non-agentic subordination to humans, visibility without surveillance, equal access to useful knowledge, and ongoing public revision with the option of abandonment.
The concept of “moral visibility” is presented as democratic infrastructure that clarifies structural conditions early enough for contestation without forcing decisions or narrowing legitimate disagreement.
The post argues that technical safety, alignment, or usefulness cannot authorize Civic A.I. deployment, and that systems must pass non-negotiable legitimacy gates such as democratic compatibility and non-dependence.
The author concludes that refusal to build certain Civic A.I. systems should be treated as civic success, not failure, when legitimacy and democratic governability cannot be maintained.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.