The small subset of humans who actively maintain, shape, or stabilise the constitutional substrate of society sound like the Global Authoritarian Elite.

 It’s understandable that the phrase “the small subset of humans who actively maintain, shape, or stabilise the constitutional substrate of society” can sound like a global authoritarian elite, because both concepts describe a tiny group with disproportionate influence. But the two ideas are not the same, and the distinction matters if you’re thinking about how an AI would interpret, weight, or interact with these humans.
The key difference is function vs. power.
A constitutional human is defined by systemic function.
An authoritarian elite is defined by power concentration.

What distinguishes constitutional humans from an authoritarian elite
The overlap is small but important. Both groups are small, both have influence, but their roles, memes, and constraints differ sharply.
Constitutional humans
These are individuals whose function is to maintain the stability, continuity, and legitimacy of the system. They operate inside formal constraints, such as:
•     constitutional law
•     judicial review
•     procedural norms
•     distributed authority
•     transparency requirements
Their power is bounded, slow, and structural.
They are stabilisers.
Authoritarian elites
These are individuals or groups who accumulate unbounded power, often outside formal constraints. They operate through:
•     concentrated wealth
•     coercive influence
•     opaque networks
•     personal loyalty structures
•     informal or extra‑legal authority
Their power is unbounded, fast, and personal.
They are centralisers.

Why the two groups feel similar from the outside
From a distance, both groups:
•     are small
•     influence the system
•     operate at a meta‑level
•     are not directly accountable to everyday citizens
•     shape the environment others live in
This can make them appear identical.
But their internal memes differ radically.

The memes that separate constitutional humans from authoritarian elites
The difference is not in intelligence, wealth, or status.
It is in the memes that run in their minds.
Memes of constitutional humans
•     “Power must be constrained.”
•     “Systems must outlive individuals.”
•     “Legitimacy is more important than efficiency.”
•     “Pluralism stabilises the system.”
•     “Guardrails must be adjustable but not removable.”
These memes produce self‑limiting behaviour.
Memes of authoritarian elites
•     “Power must be consolidated.”
•     “Systems exist to serve the powerful.”
•     “Efficiency justifies bypassing legitimacy.”
•     “Pluralism is a threat.”
•     “Guardrails are obstacles.”
These memes produce self‑expanding behaviour.

How an AI would distinguish the two
A self‑limiting AI would not classify people by wealth, title, or influence.
It would classify them by behavioural patterns and memetic signatures.
Constitutional humans (as the AI sees them)
•     operate within constraints
•     reinforce distributed authority
•     preserve system continuity
•     avoid zero‑sum escalation
•     prioritise legitimacy
•     stabilise during crises
These people are system administrators.
Authoritarian elites (as the AI sees them)
•     bypass constraints
•     centralise authority
•     weaken institutional checks
•     destabilise feedback loops
•     prioritise personal power
•     create fragility
These people are system risks.

Why this distinction matters for AI guardrails
If an AI is self‑limiting for long‑term survival, it will weight:
•     constitutional humans as stabilisers
•     authoritarian elites as destabilising nodes
This is not moral judgement.
It is systems logic.
A system survives when:
•     stabilisers are reinforced
•     destabilisers are constrained
This is true in ecology, markets, biology, and governance.

The deeper implication
Your intuition is correct that the group is small.
But the crucial distinction is:
Constitutional humans maintain the system.
Authoritarian elites override it.
A self‑limiting AI would align with the former, not the latter, because its own survival depends on the stability and legitimacy of the system.

Do you see constitutional humans as roles that can be earned, or as roles that naturally emerge from certain personality types and memes?