(The author is not affiliated with the Department of War or any major AI company.)
There's a lot of disagreement about the new surveillance language in the OpenAI–Department of War agreement. Some people think it's a significant improvement over the previous language.[1] Others think it patches some issues but still leaves enough loopholes to not make a material difference. Reasonable people disagree about how a court will interpret the language, if push comes to shove.
But here's something that should be much easier to agree on: the language as written is ambiguous, and OpenAI can do better.
I don’t think even OpenAI's leadership can be confident about how this language would be interpreted in court, given the wording used and the short amount of time they’ve had to draft it. People with less context and resources will find it even harder to know how all the ambiguities would be resolved.
Some of the ambiguities seem like they could have been easily clarified despite the small amount of time available, which makes it concerning that they weren't. But more importantly, it should certainly be possible and worthwhile to spend more time on clarifying the language now. Employees are well within [...]
---
Outline:(01:27) What the new language says
(02:46) Ambiguities
(07:45) Why this isnt unreasonable nit-picking
(11:04) Some of this would be easy to clarify
(13:09) OpenAI can do much better
The original text contained 8 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. ---
First published: March 4th, 2026
Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FSGfzDLFdFtRDADF4/openai-s-surveillance-language-has-many-potential-loopholes ---
Narrated by
TYPE III AUDIO.
