Concern 144 · Working draft · editorial review in progress
Third-party evaluation blocked by TOS
Terms-of-service barriers can prevent independent researchers from testing AI systems or create uncertainty about whether responsible testing is allowed.
Understanding the concern
A provider may restrict automated queries, certain inputs, publication, or access after a suspected policy violation. Some limits have legitimate purposes, but unclear rules can also discourage scrutiny that would benefit the public.
The concern should be tied to actual terms rather than assumed for every vendor. Researchers have proposed safe harbors that distinguish good-faith safety work from harmful misuse. A proposal is not evidence that a provider has adopted it.
An example
A researcher hesitates to test a suspected failure because the rules do not explain whether that test could lead to account suspension.
Illustrative unless identified as a documented case.
Words in plain English
- AI
- Software that learns patterns from examples or uses rules to perform tasks such as recognizing images or generating text. It can make mistakes and does not understand every situation as a person would.
- Terms of service
- The rules and agreement a provider sets for using a product or service.
Evidence and its limits
The proposal addresses legal and technical protection for public-interest evaluation; it does not establish any provider's current policy.
Longpre and colleagues · 2024 · Research proposal
A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming ↗ (opens in a new tab)Proposes legal and technical protections for independent safety research; the proposal is not itself binding policy.
Broader frameworks and background
These resources provide context. They do not establish every claim in this concern.
A question to discuss
Are good-faith researchers given clear, workable permission to test and report weaknesses?
Keep track of different views, what needs checking, and any next step in your own discussion notes.
Open discussion notes →Principles for the conversation
Before you finish · reflect together
Virtues and principles to consider
Virtues are qualities we practice in how we treat people and make choices. They are not scores for judging someone. Use these ideas to explore what a thoughtful response could look like.
Humility
Humility means recognizing the limits of our knowledge and being willing to learn from others. Expertise can be valuable without answering every question.
State where evidence is weak, invite criticism, and listen to people with different experience. Leave room to revise a decision when new information appears.
Ask together: What might we be missing, and who could help us see it?
Prudence
Prudence means using careful judgment before and during action. It balances worthwhile opportunities with the need to avoid harm that could have been anticipated.
Start with a limited trial, set stopping points, and prefer choices that can be undone when uncertainty is high. Review what happens rather than assuming the original plan remains sound.
Ask together: What is a careful next step, and when should we stop or change course?
Truthfulness
Truthfulness means making claims that match the evidence and being clear about what we do not know. It includes correcting mistakes rather than protecting a polished story.
Check sources, label guesses, and distinguish a trial result from a proven benefit. If AI helped produce a claim, someone still needs to take responsibility for checking it.
Ask together: What can we honestly say, and what still needs checking?
Editorial ratings
These are editorial judgments from the register, not measured probabilities or predictions about your situation.
About the register and scoring →More ways to explore
Search for more writing
For more specific or recent material, open a search below or ask for a web summary. AI-generated summaries can contain mistakes; open the original articles to check them.