Editing Openai/69509256-a990-8004-9e91-1e2cfc7e0dc4 (section)

=== Assistant: Your conclusion is directionally sound—if the objective is to prevent AI from becoming a de facto “oracle” whose output… ===
Your conclusion is directionally sound—if the objective is to prevent AI from becoming a de facto “oracle” whose outputs quietly harden into binding norms. The practical way to do that is less “treat AI as religious” (which can unintentionally increase sacralization) and more: treat AI as a high-powered rhetorical instrument that must be structurally subordinated to human legitimacy, accountability, and due process.

===== What you are trying to prevent =====

Two failure modes show up repeatedly when systems are personified:
# Authority leakage: AI drafts become “default truth,” then get copy-pasted into policy and law without adversarial review.
# Responsibility laundering: decision-makers outsource moral/legal justification (“the model said so”), weakening accountability—exactly what ethics frameworks warn against (ultimate responsibility must remain human). UNESCO<ref>{{cite web|title=UNESCO|url=https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics|publisher=unesco.org|access-date=2025-12-28}}</ref>

===== Guardrails that actually block AI from “defining law” =====

These are designable as institutional rules, procurement requirements, and statutory constraints.

1) Explicit non-delegation rule (hard boundary)
* “No law, regulation, or binding guidance may be determined by an automated system; AI outputs are advisory only.”
* Pair with: named human authorship and signatory accountability for every normative clause.

2) Mandatory human oversight with competence and power
* Require that humans can understand, monitor, and override outputs and that oversight is designed to reduce rights/safety risks—this is the core logic behind “human oversight” requirements in major AI governance regimes. Artificial Intelligence Act<ref>{{cite web|title=Artificial Intelligence Act|url=https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/14/|publisher=Artificial Intelligence Act|access-date=2025-12-28}}</ref>

3) Traceability and provenance for every claim
* Any AI-assisted draft must include: - source list, - quotes/anchors for legal authorities, - uncertainty flags, - and a change log. NIST’s AI RMF emphasizes governance and risk management across the lifecycle, which operationally includes documentation and accountability mechanisms. NIST Publications<ref>{{cite web|title=NIST Publications|url=https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/nist.ai.100-1.pdf|publisher=NIST Publications|access-date=2025-12-28}}</ref>

4) “No-citation, no-law” drafting rule
* If the AI proposes a legal rule, it must be tied to: - constitutional text, statute, precedent, or - clearly labeled policy objectives (not disguised as “what the law is”). This blocks the common pattern where fluent text substitutes for legal grounding.

5) Adversarial review as a required phase
* Red-team the draft for: - bias/disparate impact, - due process problems, - loopholes, - and incentives/gaming. Ethics and governance recommendations explicitly call for impact assessment, auditability, and due diligence mechanisms. OHCHR<ref>{{cite web|title=OHCHR|url=https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/UNESCO.pdf|publisher=ohchr.org|access-date=2025-12-28}}</ref>

6) Disclosure to the public
* When AI is used in lawmaking or rulemaking support, require disclosure: - where it was used, - what model/version, - what prompts/constraints, - and which sections were AI-suggested vs. human-authored. This is a legitimacy safeguard: people can contest “machine-shaped” reasoning.

7) Version freezing and reproducibility
* For any ongoing regulatory use, freeze the model version and configuration, or you risk “moving law” because the model changed.

===== About “treat AI language as religious” =====

If you mean “religious” as set apart, dangerous, and requiring ritualized controls, that can be rhetorically effective—like handling nuclear material. But if you mean “religious” as revered, it backfires by reinforcing the very personification you want to prevent.

A more robust stance is: AI is not sacred; it is powerful speech technology. Therefore it must be constitutionally and procedurally constrained so legitimacy remains human, contestable, and transparent.

===== The minimum viable rule set =====

If you wanted the shortest enforceable package:
* AI may assist drafting, but cannot be the legal author.
* Every binding sentence must have a human owner, a cited authority or stated policy rationale, and a review log.
* AI use must be disclosed and audited.
* Ultimate responsibility and accountability remain human. UNESCO<ref>{{cite web|title=UNESCO|url=https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics|publisher=unesco.org|access-date=2025-12-28}}</ref>

If you tell me whether you’re thinking at the level of national law, agency regulation, or corporate governance / HR policy, I can translate the above into a concrete policy template (definitions, scope, prohibited uses, required controls, audit rights, and enforcement).