Pennsylvania Ruling Limits Public Access to Officials' AI Conversations

The recent ruling by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR) marks a critical juncture in the evolution of government transparency within the age of generative artificial intelligence. By determining that certain AI-generated transcripts and logs of conversations involving state officials may be exempt from the state’s Right-to-Know Law, the agency has effectively carved out a 'private workspace' for public servants to interact with large language models. This decision centers on the interpretation of AI interactions as 'internal, pre-decisional deliberations' or 'personal notes,' categories that have historically protected the early stages of policy development from public scrutiny. However, the application of these legacy exemptions to a transformative technology like AI raises fundamental questions about the future of the public's right to understand how government decisions are reached.

At the heart of the OOR’s decision is the classification of AI as a tool for brainstorming rather than a final arbiter of policy. Under Pennsylvania’s existing legal framework, records that reflect the internal 'think-tank' process of an agency—where ideas are proposed, debated, and discarded before a final action is taken—are generally protected from disclosure. The OOR appears to be extending this logic to generative AI, suggesting that when an official prompts a chatbot to draft a memo, summarize a report, or simulate a policy outcome, those digital footprints are part of the deliberative process. While this provides officials with the psychological safety to experiment with AI to improve administrative efficiency, it simultaneously obscures the inputs and biases that may be influencing state governance.

“

The recent ruling by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR) marks a critical juncture in the evolution of government transparency within the age of generative artificial intelligence.

Transparency advocates and legal experts are sounding the alarm over what they describe as the creation of a 'black box' in the executive branch. The concern is that if AI interactions are shielded from the public, there is no way to verify if an official is relying on hallucinated data, biased algorithms, or proprietary software logic to shape public policy. This 'policy laundering'—where human accountability is diffused through an opaque digital intermediary—could undermine the very essence of the Right-to-Know Law. If the prompts used to guide an AI and the subsequent iterations of its output are hidden, the public loses the ability to trace the lineage of a legislative proposal or an executive order back to its source.

This ruling also highlights a growing legislative lacuna. Most state transparency laws were drafted in an era of paper records or, at best, early email communication. They did not anticipate a world where a state official could have a multi-turn, sophisticated dialogue with a machine that synthesizes vast amounts of data. The Pennsylvania decision mirrors early 2000s debates over whether text messages on personal devices used for state business should be public. Just as those debates eventually led to updated statutes and court rulings, this OOR decision is likely the first step in a long legal and legislative battle to redefine what constitutes a 'public record' in the 21st century.

Looking forward, this ruling may encourage more rapid adoption of generative AI across Pennsylvania’s state agencies, as officials now have a degree of legal certainty regarding the privacy of their digital brainstorming. However, it also sets the stage for potential litigation from media organizations and watchdog groups seeking to narrow the scope of these exemptions. As other states look to Pennsylvania as a bellwether, the pressure will mount on state legislatures to pass specific AI transparency acts that balance the need for administrative efficiency with the non-negotiable requirement for public oversight. Without such clarity, the 'deliberative process' exemption may become a catch-all shield for any government activity involving an algorithm.