Looking at the comments here, I think we need to differentiate between "AI that works for you" and "AI that works for others". "AI that works for others" isn't

Looking at the comments here, I think we need to differentiate between "AI that works for you" and "AI that works for others". "AI that works for others" isn't necessarily a bad thing. For instance, I would be fine with a customer service AI that I can ask questions to 24/7 and without delay. It makes sense that the people who deploy that AI would not want it to be jailbroken, to be used as a generic AI or to do something harmful. A constitution makes sense here. "AI that works for you" would require that the constitution is controlled by you -- not Anthropic, DeepSeek, Meta, or OpenAI. Sometimes you want no constitution, like when you're using it normally. Sometimes you do want a constitution and prevent jailbreaking, for example, if you are giving the AI untrusted input (e.g. scraped HTML, customer queries). In conclusion, unlike most comments here, I don't think this is a useless or even harmful invention. It can be very useful indeed. However, this highlights the need for local, uncensored, and open-weight AIs where one can control what constitution is being used.