FOIA docs reveal Pentagon sought OpenAI models with minimal refusal rates

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.

• FOIA documents revealed disputed Pentagon plans for a less restrictive AI system
• OpenAI denied agreeing to language requiring minimal refusal rates from models
• A Pentagon lawyer later withdrew an earlier confirmation about the contract

Documents released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit reportedly revealed that the Pentagon sought out an OpenAI system with fewer restrictions.

The paperwork described models intended for national security work that would have "minimal refusal rates" during certain military applications.

OpenAI and the Pentagon have both disputed that such wording appeared in the final agreement signed between them.

Dispute emerges over AI restrictions in military contract documents

The disputed language appeared in a contract document describing work involving testing, evaluation, and improvement of OpenAI models for defense-related activities.

The document referred to specialized models created for government security uses, including systems designed to reject fewer requests during operation.

However, officials from both organizations later said the document obtained through the lawsuit was not the final contract version.

"OpenAI has never agreed to contract language requiring 'minimal refusal rates.' This language does not appear in our executed contract," said Nate Evans, an OpenAI spokesperson.

"The document you received appears to be an earlier draft proposed by the Department before we provided feedback."

Evans added that OpenAI rejected the wording and said the final executed agreement did not contain that requirement.

A Department of Defense representative later stated that the phrase "minimal refusal rates" does not appear in any active contract.

The disagreement continued after a Pentagon lawyer initially confirmed the document before later withdrawing that statement.

Trevor Tiedeman, a Pentagon research official, said there may have been confusion between released records and executed agreements.

Tiedeman also indicated he would examine how the document passed through review procedures before becoming publicly available.

The original document was released after The Intercept requested contract records connected with military artificial intelligence agreements.

The request specifically sought completed agreements, while officials later argued the released material represented an earlier version.

OpenAI did not provide the complete contract publicly, leaving some details about the agreement unavailable for independent review.

Concerns grow over military AI safeguards and operational limits

The dispute has renewed discussion about how much control technology companies should retain over artificial intelligence used by governments.

Commercial AI systems typically include restrictions designed to prevent assistance with certain harmful activities, including weapons development.

OpenAI's public chatbot, for example, refuses requests involving assistance with planning specific attacks or selecting targets for strikes.

"Minimal refusal is likely referring to little or no safeguards on the model being used," said Heidy Khlaaf, chief scientist at the AI Now Institute.

She argued that private technology companies face difficult decisions when their systems become connected with military operations.

The Pentagon has also faced separate disagreements with other AI firms over restrictions involving defense applications.

Despite those disputes, OpenAI expanded its military agreement, allowing use of its services across classified government networks.

The updated agreement retained references to mission-focused AI models, although significant sections of the contract were redacted.

OpenAI has said its agreement includes restrictions against autonomous weapons use and certain surveillance activities involving Americans.

The company and government agencies have not fully disclosed how those restrictions would apply across different military scenarios.