“Forgive me for being cynical about something from Sam fucking Altman, but I just don’t trust the guy, and this is an (as of writing this sentence) unsigned contract with bus-sized loopholes.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI's revised Pentagon contract language was unsigned at the time of writing and contains huge loopholes that allow domestic surveillance.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it
Where's Your Ed At, The AI Bubble Is An Information War, paragraph 149.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment wyea-the-ai-bubble-is-an-information-war-b666b7-a1
We recorded 38 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2026-03-03. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
Conditions
- as of writing, unsigned (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- as of writing this sentence
- unsigned contract
- bus-sized loopholes
- intentionally
- deliberate
- incidentally
- Section 702 of FISA
Our interpretation
- In context, unsigned refers to the revised surveillance language, not necessarily the underlying agreement.
- Bus-sized loopholes means materially consequential gaps permitting domestic surveillance despite the announced protections.
- The specific proposed gap concerns incidental collection or analysis involving Americans under foreign-intelligence authorities.
- As of writing is a time qualification on an observation, not a conditional forecast.
- The writing timestamp is unavailable, so the target covers the March 2 announcement through the March 3 publication date.
Counts as supported if: Contemporaneous records establish that the amendment remained unsigned at the relevant writing time, and the operative terms plus applicable law establish a substantial route to the domestic surveillance described.
Counts as contradicted if: An execution record establishes signature before the relevant writing time, or the complete operative agreement demonstrably bars the alleged incidental-surveillance route.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
Contemporaneous reporting supports the statement that the amendment was unsigned. A procurement-law analysis also supports concern about the intentional-use qualifier. However, it does not establish the stronger assertion that the agreement definitively permits the described surveillance. The full agreement and exact signing history remain missing, while OpenAI describes additional restrictions. This is partial support with unresolved scope, not a demonstrated contradiction.
Limitations
- Unsigned status rests on a secondary relay of reporting.
- Published legal analysis is not a binding interpretation.
- The company's public description is not a substitute for the executed agreement.
Evidence (3 items)
Supports the claim: FinancialJuice,
not yet been formally signed
Why it matters here: The alert supports the unsigned-amendment component at its reporting time. It relays Axios rather than supplying a signature record.
- Where
- News alert
- Publisher
- FinancialJuice
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: Lawfare,
narrows the prohibition
Why it matters here: Jessica Tillipman's analysis of the March 2 language identifies a possible gap for incidental outputs. She also explains that missing definitions and the undisclosed full agreement prevent a definitive assessment.
- Publisher
- Lawfare
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: OpenAI,
require a new agreement
Why it matters here: OpenAI says the arrangement excludes Department of War intelligence agencies such as the NSA and describes additional technical safeguards. Those claimed restrictions are material counterweight, but the announcement is not the complete executed contract.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
The amendment's execution history and the complete operative agreement, assessed against the relevant surveillance authorities and the specific proposed incidental-use scenario.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Where's Your Ed At, The AI Bubble Is An Information War
Forgive me for being cynical about something from Sam fucking Altman, but I just don’t trust the guy, and this is an (as of writing this sentence) unsigned contract with bus-sized loopholes.
- Where
- paragraph 149
- Published
- 2026-03-03
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment wyea-the-ai-bubble-is-an-information-war-b666b7-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment wyea-the-ai-bubble-is-an-information-war-b666b7-a1.