Our profitable request for Peter Kyle’s ChatGPT logs surprised observers
Tada Photos/Victoria Jones/Shutterstock
Once I fired off an e-mail in the beginning of 2025, I hadn’t meant to set a authorized precedent for a way the UK authorities handles its interactions with AI chatbots, however that’s precisely what occurred.
All of it started tech-secretary-says-take-flack-ai-expansion-goes-wrong”>in January once I learn an interview with the then-UK tech secretary Peter Kyle in Politics House. Making an attempt to recommend he used first-hand the know-how his division was set as much as regulate, Kyle stated that he would typically have conversations with ChatGPT.
That bought me questioning: might I acquire his chat historical past? Freedom of data (FOI) legal guidelines are sometimes deployed to acquire emails and different paperwork produced by public our bodies, however previous precedent has advised that some personal information – resembling search queries – aren’t eligible for launch on this means. I used to be to see which means the chatbot conversations could be categorised.
It turned out to be the previous: whereas a lot of Kyle’s interactions with ChatGPT have been thought-about to be personal, and so ineligible to be launched beneath FOI legal guidelines, the occasions when he interacted with the AI chatbot in an official capability have been.
So it was that in March, the Division for Science, Business and Expertise (DSIT) offered a handful of conversations that Kyle had had with the chatbot – which turned the premise tech-secretary-uses-chatgpt-for-policy-advice/”>for our unique story revealing his conversations.
The discharge of the chat interactions was a shock to information safety and FOI consultants. “I’m stunned that you just bought them,” stated Tim Turner, a knowledge safety professional based mostly in Manchester, UK, on the time. Others have been much less diplomatic of their language: they have been surprised.
When publishing the story, we defined how the discharge was a world first – and having access to AI chatbot conversations went on to realize worldwide curiosity.
Researchers in several nations, together with Canada and Australia, bought in contact with me to ask for tips about easy methods to craft their very own requests to authorities ministers to attempt to acquire the identical info. For instance, a subsequent FOI request in April discovered that Feryal Clark, then the UK minister for synthetic intelligence, hadn’t used ChatGPT in any respect in her official capability, regardless of professing its advantages. However many requests proved unsuccessful, as governments started to rely extra on authorized exceptions to the free launch of data.
I’ve personally discovered that the UK authorities has turn out to be a lot cagier across the concept of FOI, particularly regarding AI use, since my story for New Scientist. A subsequent request I made by way of FOI laws for the response inside DSIT to the story – together with any emails or Microsoft Groups messages mentioning the story, plus how DSIT arrived at its official response to the article – was rejected.
The explanation why? It was deemed vexatious, and finding out legitimate info that must be included from the remainder would take too lengthy. I used to be tempted to ask the federal government to make use of ChatGPT to summarise all the pieces related, given how a lot the then-tech secretary had waxed lyrical about its prowess, however determined in opposition to it.
Total, the discharge mattered as a result of governments are adopting AI at tempo. The UK authorities has already admitted that the civil service is utilizing ChatGPT-like instruments in day-to-day processes, claiming to save up to two weeks’ a year via improved effectivity. But AI doesn’t impartially summarise info, neither is it good: hallucinations exist. That’s why it is very important have transparency over how it’s used – for good or ailing.
Matters:
