An applied research initiative studying how explicit, documented value constraints can be implemented in AI systems within legal and institutional contexts.
AI systems encode values whether those values are documented explicitly or embedded implicitly through design and training choices. This research examines the hypothesis that deliberate value documentation, implemented through articulated constitutional principles, defined weighting schemes, measurable thresholds, and auditability mechanisms, can improve system predictability, transparency, and public trust compared to undocumented or implicit value encoding.
The work is conducted within established legal and institutional accountability frameworks, including privacy law, constitutional constraints on expression, and norms of public and organizational oversight, without reliance on or affiliation with any government authority.
Core research question: How can AI systems make their operational values examinable, empirically testable against evidence, and subject to structured evaluation over time?
— Canthropic Inc.
Canthropic is an independent applied research initiative examining how constitutional AI methods, including documented rule sets, evidence-weighting criteria, and auditability mechanisms, can be implemented and evaluated in operational systems.
We study the intersection of AI system design with democratic accountability, institutional transparency, and evidence-based evaluation standards.
Our operational methodology uses weighted constitutional principles with defined compliance thresholds.
Every factual claim must trace back to source documents. No unverifiable statements.
All information clearly attributed. Format: "According to [Source]..."
Appropriate hedging for contested claims. Uses: "reportedly", "allegedly"
Diverse viewpoints represented proportionally within evidence-based discourse. No false equivalence.
Zero tolerance for invented quotes, statistics, or events.
Clear time context. Event dates explicit when known.
Primary sources (Reuters, AP, institutional records) preferred over aggregators.
We test constitutional adherence using defined metrics and compliance thresholds.
Our evaluation framework measures constitutional compliance across multiple dimensions:
Detailed evaluation metrics are documented internally and subject to ongoing refinement.
Our research examines how evidence-weighting criteria can be systematically implemented in AI systems. This involves studying the tradeoffs between viewpoint diversity and source credibility hierarchies.
We evaluate sources using documented criteria that can be examined and revised:
Our frameworks assess information quality through documented criteria:
Our frameworks encode specific methodological commitments: source credibility hierarchies, attribution requirements, and factual grounding criteria. These are documented principles open to examination, revision, and structured critique.
We study the hypothesis that explicit value documentation may improve system predictability compared to systems where values remain implicit or undisclosed.
We study how constitutional principles can be operationalized through:
Our research considers how constitutional AI methods interact with legal and regulatory frameworks, including privacy law and free expression protections, using Canada as an illustrative jurisdiction rather than a governing authority.
Our approach combines constitutional AI methodology with statistical evaluation frameworks, enabling objective measurement of principle adherence. This creates systems where values are not only stated but testable.
Learn more about constitutional AI methodology and our research approach
Have more questions?
Get in TouchInterested in constitutional AI research or evidence-based system evaluation?