Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-28
The reported efforts provide background on ways organizations have sought public input in AI development. The evidence explicitly does not establish that input controlled models, changed their behavior, or made them safer, so the contribution is relevant but limited.
Does this challenge the goal?
In-scope gap
Reported public-input efforts in AI development provide relevant inquiry into how public perspectives might inform systems, without contesting the exploration’s goal.
The packet does not say who participated, how input was weighed, or whether it changed model behavior.
Why this category?
- Relevant background on public input in AI development
- Intended roles distinguished from demonstrated effects
The packet reports organizational activities and attributed characterizations, not evidence of influence on model behavior.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Authority, accountability and resilience →
Read the exploration goalNew evidence is being assessed. Any answer below is provisional; parts whose evidence changed or was withdrawn are withheld.
Describe the organizations’ reported public-input efforts and their intended roles in AI development, without claiming demonstrated effects on model behavior.
What we can say so far
The chapter reports that Polis gathered public input for the constitution guiding Anthropic’s Claude 3. It also reports that OpenAI worked with the Collective Intelligence Project on a grant program focused on public input to AI, and was forming a team to incorporate public input into its models. These efforts were reported as intended to inform constitutional guidance, support research on public input, and provide a route for incorporating input into models. The chapter’s characterization of accelerated research does not establish an effect on model behavior.
What remains open
- The passage does not detail who participated, how input was weighed, or how resulting model behavior was assessed.
Conditions and limits
- These are activities and plans as reported in the chapter, not independently verified findings.
- The reported research acceleration is not evidence of an effect on model behavior.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
Public input in AI development The chapter reports that Polis was used to gather public input for the constitution guiding Anthropic’s Claude 3, which the chapter says many considered the leading generative foundation model at the time. It also reports that OpenAI worked with the Collective Intelligence Project on a grant program about public input to AI, which dramatically accelerated research in the area; OpenAI was forming a team to incorporate such input into its models.
Reports the organizations’ public-input efforts, their intended roles, and the limits of what can be concluded about model behavior.
Plurality — Augmented Deliberation
Read full source: Plurality — Augmented Deliberation (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: Plurality — Augmented Deliberation →