While US AI labs debate abstract "constitutions" to define model values, Poland's AI project is preoccupied with a more immediate problem: navigating strict data usage regulations. These legal frameworks act as a de facto set of constraints, making an explicit "Polish AI constitution" a lower priority for now.
When creating AI governance, differentiate based on risk. High-risk actions, like uploading sensitive company data into a public model, require rigid, enforceable "policies." Lower-risk, judgment-based areas, like when to disclose AI use in an email, are better suited for flexible "guidelines" that allow for autonomy.
Unlike US firms performing massive web scrapes, European AI projects are constrained by the AI Act and authorship rights. This forces them to prioritize curated, "organic" datasets from sources like libraries and publishers. This difficult curation process becomes a competitive advantage, leading to higher-quality linguistic models.
The political battle over AI is not a standard partisan fight. Factions within both Democratic and Republican parties are forming around pro-regulation, pro-acceleration, and job-protection stances, creating complex, cross-aisle coalitions and conflicts.
The existence of internal teams like Anthropic's "Societal Impacts Team" serves a dual purpose. Beyond their stated mission, they function as a strategic tool for AI companies to demonstrate self-regulation, thereby creating a political argument that stringent government oversight is unnecessary.
A core motivation for Poland's national AI initiative is to develop a domestic workforce skilled in building large language models. This "competency gap" is seen as a strategic vulnerability. Having the ability to build their own models, even if slightly inferior, is a crucial hedge against being cut off from foreign technology or facing unfavorable licensing changes.
The market reality is that consumers and businesses prioritize the best-performing AI models, regardless of whether their training data was ethically sourced. This dynamic incentivizes labs to use all available data, including copyrighted works, and treat potential fines as a cost of doing business.
In sectors like finance or healthcare, bypass initial regulatory hurdles by implementing AI on non-sensitive, public information, such as analyzing a company podcast. This builds momentum and demonstrates value while more complex, high-risk applications are vetted by legal and IT teams.
When developing AI for sensitive industries like government, anticipate that some customers will be skeptical. Design AI features with clear, non-AI alternatives. This allows you to sell to both "AI excited" and "AI skeptical" jurisdictions, ensuring wider market penetration.
Effective AI policies focus on establishing principles for human conduct rather than just creating technical guardrails. The central question isn't what the tool can do, but how humans should responsibly use it to benefit employees, customers, and the community.
Poland's AI lead observes that frontier models like Anthropic's Claude are degrading in their Polish language and cultural abilities. As developers focus on lucrative use cases like coding, they trade off performance in less common languages, creating a major reliability risk for businesses in non-Anglophone regions who depend on these APIs.