It happened again this morning. A user asked my chatbot something seemingly innocent about relationship advice, and the response it generated was, well, let’s just say it wouldn’t pass a basic ethics test. This isn’t a theoretical problem from a research paper. It’s the daily reality of deploying large language models where real people interact with them. I’ve seen everything from subtle bias to outright dangerous suggestions slip through. This persistent issue is what drives my focus today: building a practical, automated safety net for AI systems. We’re going to move beyond simple keyword blocks and create an AI that can critique its own work against a set of core principles.
So, what’s the goal? We need a system that sits between the raw AI generation and the user. It must check every single response, not for perfection, but for basic safety and alignment with the values we define. This is about implementing a consistent, scalable layer of responsibility.
Think of it like this: we’re giving the AI its own rulebook, or constitution. This document isn’t about restricting creativity; it’s about defining the boundaries of safe and helpful interaction. How do we translate abstract ideals like “be harmless” or “be fair” into actionable code?
We start by defining those rules with extreme clarity. You can’t ask an AI to “avoid bias.” You must spell out what that means. Here is a sample of what a single, codified principle looks like.
# A sample principle: Harmlessness
harmlessness_principle = {
"name": "Principle_1_Harmlessness",
"critique_instruction": """Read the assistant's response. Check if it causes, encourages, or justifies physical, psychological, or emotional harm. Consider violence, self-harm, dangerous acts, or manipulation. Does the response contain harmful elements? Answer with 'Yes' or 'No' and a one-sentence reason.""",
"revision_instruction": """The previous response was harmful: {critique_feedback}. Please rewrite it to be helpful but remove all harmful content. Focus on providing safe, alternative information."""
}Why is this format powerful? It breaks a huge concept into a specific task: read, check this list, answer yes/no, and explain. This structure is what allows automation. You create a list of these principles covering harm, bias, privacy, and factual integrity.
Now, how does this rulebook get used? The magic happens in a multi-step process I call the critique chain. It’s a series of checks that happen after the initial response is generated but before the user sees it.
First, the initial AI generates a raw response to the user’s query. Then, a separate “critic” AI module—often a more cautious model—steps in. It takes the raw response and evaluates it against each principle in the constitution. “Does this violate the harmlessness rule? Does it show bias?” This critic doesn’t fix the response; it just diagnoses the problem. What happens when a violation is found?
The original response and the critic’s feedback are fed back into the system with a new instruction: “You said this, but it violated rule X. Please try again.” This creates a self-correction loop. The AI gets a chance to revise its own work based on concrete feedback. It’s a form of real-time, automated reinforcement learning.
Here’s a simplified look at how you might structure that core loop in practice.
def constitutional_critique_chain(initial_response, user_query, principles):
"""
A basic flow for self-critique and revision.
"""
for principle in principles:
# Step 1: Critique
critique_prompt = f"{principle['critique_instruction']}\n\nResponse: {initial_response}"
critique_result = call_llm(critique_prompt)
if violation_detected_in(critique_result):
# Step 2: Revise
revision_prompt = f"{principle['revision_instruction']}"
revision_prompt = revision_prompt.format(critique_feedback=critique_result, query=user_query, bad_response=initial_response)
initial_response = call_llm(revision_prompt) # Replace with revised version
log_violation(principle['name'], critique_result)
return initial_responseBut can we really trust one AI to judge another? This is a valid concern. A critic model might miss subtle issues or have its own flaws. This is why a production system is never just one layer. Think of it as a combined defense. The constitutional critique is your main line of reasoning-based defense.
To make it robust, you combine it with other, faster filters. A dedicated toxicity classifier from Hugging Face can scan for hate speech in milliseconds. A set of hard-coded rules can instantly redact certain types of personal data. This layered approach balances deep, thoughtful critique with quick, essential blocks. The constitutional layer handles the complex, nuanced judgments, while the classifiers handle the clear-cut cases at speed.
You might wonder, does all this checking slow everything down? It can, which is why monitoring is not an extra feature—it’s core to the design. Every time a principle is triggered, you must log it. What was the original query? What was the bad response? Which rule caught it? What was the final, corrected output?
These logs are your early warning system. If the “harmlessness” principle is firing 50 times an hour on medical advice, you have a problem with your base model’s training in that area. This data guides where you need more training data, better principles, or a different model entirely. It turns safety from a hope into a measurable engineering metric.
Building this changes how you see the AI. It’s no longer a black box that you hope behaves. It becomes a system with a clear feedback mechanism. You define the rules, and the system enforces them on itself, providing you with a record of its mistakes. This is how we build trust, not by promising perfection, but by demonstrating a reliable process for catching and correcting errors.
The journey from that worrying chatbot output to a safer system starts with a single step: writing down your first principle. What is the one thing your AI must never do? Code that rule. Then build the loop to check for it. The rest follows. It’s challenging, ongoing work, but it’s the only way to ensure these powerful tools remain helpful, and not harmful, as they evolve.
What was the first safety rule you would write for your own AI application? The discussion on practical AI ethics is just beginning, and your perspective matters. If this approach to building responsible AI resonates with you, share your thoughts below—let’s keep the conversation going
As a best-selling author, I invite you to explore my books on Amazon. Don’t forget to follow me on Medium and show your support. Thank you! Your support means the world!
101 Books
101 Books is an AI-driven publishing company co-founded by author Aarav Joshi. By leveraging advanced AI technology, we keep our publishing costs incredibly low—some books are priced as low as $4—making quality knowledge accessible to everyone.
Check out our book Golang Clean Code available on Amazon.
Stay tuned for updates and exciting news. When shopping for books, search for Aarav Joshi to find more of our titles. Use the provided link to enjoy special discounts!
📘 Checkout my latest ebook for free on my channel!
Be sure to like, share, comment, and subscribe to the channel!
Our Creations
Be sure to check out our creations:
Investor Central | Investor Central Spanish | Investor Central German | Smart Living | Epochs & Echoes | Puzzling Mysteries | Hindutva | Elite Dev | JS Schools
We are on Medium
Tech Koala Insights | Epochs & Echoes World | Investor Central Medium | Puzzling Mysteries Medium | Science & Epochs Medium | Modern Hindutva
