policy advisors

Abstract: Large language models, the artificial intelligence (AI) systems behind modern chatbots, are trained on vast amounts of legal text, but can they build on it to write law for situations that text never anticipated? In this study, we analyse AI agents' ability to draft a hypothetical "Constitution" for a "community of AI agents". We design "constitutional assemblies" in which a single language model plays several characters that debate to produce a draft constitution. We find that the assemblies converge on a robust floor of legal provisions, and generate a wide variety of different proposals around it, including several AI-specific provisions with no equivalent in human law. Looking more closely at the "creativity" of these AI agents, we find different levels: most proposals combine existing concepts and themes from human constitutions with AI-specific vocabulary. We introduce a measure of this recombination, which helps identify and highlight the most novel legal material. This study reveals a ceiling on AI creativity: the agents extend familiar legal ideas to new situations, but they do not work through what those situations would change. Although current AI models can help develop new laws, they still depend on human legal reasoning.

Abstract: We present a training framework for developing core competencies in the practical operationalisation of AI ethics: (1) identifying ethical concerns; (2) determining which standard ethics requirements they implicate; (3) selecting and prioritising concrete technical and organisational measures to address them; and (4) recognising ethics tensions and reasoning about trade-offs where such tensions cannot be fully resolved. The framework is intended for researchers and engineers in AI, Research Ethics Committee members, policymakers, and students, providing them with practical tools for translating abstract ethical requirements into concrete actions. The framework provides a step-by-step approach organised around four interconnected tasks: issue identification, requirement mapping, measure selection, and tension identification. These tasks are supported by a suite of training materials, including an Ethics Checklist and a Portfolio of Measures. Here, we complement them with a set of practical exercises of three different types as well as trainer guides. We also discuss lessons learned in pilot training sessions and offer recommendations for trainers.

Abstract: The search for a common view of justice and fairness has challenged human collective activity, as our diverging judgments are unavoidably shaped by the self-interests of social position, personal benefit, cultural inheritance, and historical circumstance. John Rawls famously attempted to overcome this limitation through popularizing a philosophical tradition known by the phrase "the original position" - a thought experiment by which people select principles of justice without knowing the identities or advantages they will possess. Critics, however, have long questioned whether people can meaningfully suspend their social identities and suppress morally relevant forms of lived experience. Artificial intelligence engaged to calculate algorithmic and agentic fairness introduces a novel possibility. LLMs have no singular class, race, gender, nationality, or biography, yet their parameters encode linguistic representations of a vast range of human identities and moral traditions. Perhaps the ethical judgments of LLMs could approximate an integrative original position - a "view from everywhere" generated not by excluding social identities but by computationally incorporating their diversity.It is unlikely that humankind will "hand over the keys" to computational systems by simply delegating complete agentic control of distributive and procedural collective processes. But AI may play a role, perhaps a positive one, interacting with individual and collective human judgment as we often confront increasingly polarized views on what is fair and just. We present data comparing human, base model, and frontier/fine-tuned model judgments about classic moral dilemmas while systematically varying identity relationships and Rawlsian constraints on identity. We conclude by speculating whether, if advanced AI systems provide humans with thoughtful advice, humans would actually be likely to accept it.

Abstract: Suppose a committee, expert panel, or other group is making judgments on some issues, where these may be not just yes/no-questions, such as whether a defendant is guilty, but also variables with many possible values, such as macroeconomic or meteorological variables or travel directions. Furthermore, there may be interconnections between different issues, as in the case of economic or climate variables. How can the group arrive at "intelligent" collective judgments, based on the group members' individual judgments? We investigate three challenges raised by this judgment-aggregation problem. First, reasonable methods of aggregation (such as defining the collective judgment for each issue as the average or median judgment) can produce inconsistent collective judgments. Secondly, many methods of aggregation are manipulable by strategic voting. Finally, not all methods of aggregation are conducive to tracking the truth on the issues in question. We prove new impossibility or possibility theorems on all three challenges, identifying what it takes to produce collective judgments in a consistent, non-manipulable, and truth-tracking manner and thereby to achieve collective intelligence through aggregation. Overall, the median method, though imperfect, performs reasonably well. We also note the relevance of our analysis for non-human group decisions.

Abstract: ABDA-NL adds a natural-language interface to ABDA, a system for argument-based discussion using ASPIC- knowledge bases under grounded semantics. Users see which conclusions are accepted, rejected, or undecided, open an interactive rendering of the grounded discussion game to learn why, explore what-if alternatives by suspending assumptions and rules or changing preferences, ask questions that are answered from a scenario's reference documents, and author new facts, assumptions, and rules in plain English. A large language model provides the bridge between language and formalism: it answers questions from the documents and the current state of the scenario, and it translates plain-English edits into candidate formal statements. The deterministic ABDA engine remains the sole source of arguments, attacks, and acceptance labels, and every proposal of the model is validated and confirmed by the user before it takes effect.