Surrounding Anthropic’s AI Model “Claude”,
The School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS) at North South University (NSU) successfully organised an SHSS Faculty Seminar titled “A Philosophical Critique of Anthropic’s ‘Constitution’ for its AI Model ‘Claude’” on 05 February 2026. The seminar brought together faculty members, academics, researchers, and students from various disciplines, fostering a thoughtful academic environment for discussion on artificial intelligence, ethics, and philosophy. The seminar was moderated by Md. Mehedi Hasan, Senior Lecturer, Department of English & Modern Languages, NSU, who welcomed the participants and guided the session.
The keynote presentation was delivered by Prof. Dr. Norman Kenneth Swazo, Director, Office of Research and Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Philosophy at North South University. In his presentation, Prof. Swazo offered a philosophical critique of Anthropic’s “constitutional” approach to artificial intelligence, focusing on how the AI model Claude is supposed to be governed by ethical principles related to safety, privacy, and accuracy. He examined whether such constitution-based governance can meaningfully support claims of ethical reasoning, moral judgment, or consciousness in artificial systems, particularly given their lack of lived experience and contextual awareness. A substantial Question and Answer session followed the presentation, during which faculty members and students actively engaged with the speaker. Participants raised questions regarding whether constitutionally guided AI systems could ever possess consciousness, given that they operate primarily through pattern recognition without genuine contextual understanding.
Prof. Swazo responded by expressing skepticism, noting that while AI systems can engage in simulation and produce sophisticated outputs, simulation alone does not constitute consciousness. Citing neuroscientist Anil Seth, Prof. Swazo reminded that simulation is not instantiation. Additional questions addressed the limitations of machine learning in comparison to human moral fallibility, and whether society expects too much ethical responsibility from AI systems. One participant raised concerns about responsibility in cases where individuals are influenced by AI-generated guidance. In response, Prof. Swazo distinguished between AI-induced and AI-associated psychosis and suggested that such situations are better examined through the lens of psychopathology, emphasizing that actions rooted in psychological distress cannot be simplistically attributed to artificial systems. He added that Claude is supposedly designed to follow broad ethical guidelines, analyse consequences, and operate within built-in constraints rather than exercise full moral autonomy. Further discussion focused on issues of copyright and access to knowledge, particularly whether AI systems that draw on publicly available information might inadvertently privilege students who lack access to certain academic resources. Prof. Swazo clarified that Claude’s “knowledge” base includes millions of books and otherwise legally available materials, although Anthropic did settle lawsuits for violation of copyright. Even so, ethical tensions may arise in broader debates about access and fairness. Another student questioned how the absence of consciousness in AI models could be assessed. Prof. Swazo explained that it is difficult to prove a negative but that his evaluation rests not on technical analogies to human neural networks, but on observable behavior, noting that “knowledge” such as Claude has is insufficient to replicate the full complexity of human thought.
Following Professor Swazo’s lecture, Md. Rizwanul Islam, Professor of Law and Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, NSU observed that ethical frameworks embedded in artificial intelligence systems may carry cultural and ideological biases, particularly when developed within specific socio-cultural contexts. He emphasized that an important question is not only how such technologies are designed, but how societies critically respond to and engage with them.
