The Pentagon reportedly asked OpenAI to provide an AI that doesn't like saying no to requests

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.