Last year, Nate Sanford filed a “silly story” for Spokane’s alt-weekly Inlander about a state senator getting into a Twitter argument with an AI porn spambot. The bot was eventually suspended after Spokane’s mayor reported the account.
But a city employee mentioned to Sanford, now a reporter at KNKX and Cascade PBS, that they’d been testing AI tools at work. That offhand comment sparked Sanford’s curiosity about how local governments were actually using generative artificial intelligence and led to a series of investigations that revealed how chatbots are quietly embedding into the machinery of local government.
Sanford used extensive public records of ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot logs from city employees to show, among other things, the city of Bellingham’s draft AI policy was written with the help of ChatGPT.
I get excited when I see an intriguing use of FOIA to demystify local government. And leading Poynter’s AI work, you can imagine how I geeked out when I saw Sanford’s investigations.
Here is how they start:
When the Lummi Nation applied for funding to hire a crime victims coordinator last year, Bellingham Mayor Kim Lund sent a letter encouraging the Washington Department of Commerce to award the nation a state grant.
“The Lummi Nation has a strong history of community leadership and a deep commitment to the well-being of its members,” the letter read. “The addition of a Coordinator will enhance the Lummi Nation’s capacity to address violence and support victims in a meaningful and culturally appropriate manner.”
But the mayor didn’t write those words herself. ChatGPT did.
Records show Lund’s assistant fed the Commerce Department’s request for proposals into the artificial intelligence chatbot and asked it to write the letter for her. “Please include some facts about violence in native communities in the United States or Washington state in particular,” she added in her prompt.
The stories highlight the need for AI literacy as the technology embeds deeper into our lives, even in ways we may never see. So, I reached out to Sanford in an email conversation to find out why and how he used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain ChatGPT logs, and what they say about where we’re heading.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Alex Mahadevan: So, why did you think to FOIA for chatbot logs? Did you get a tip? Just curious?
Nate Sanford: After the porn spambot story, I did some research online to see if it was possible to use records requests to get more info on local government AI use. I found a post from someone on MuckRock who had tried requesting AI records from their local police department. I was inspired to try something similar to see what would turn up with Washington city government leaders.
I ended up filing records requests seeking chatbot records from almost a dozen cities in Washington. I was mainly just testing the system to see if it was even possible.
Mahadevan: What was the custodian’s reaction? Did it take a lot of back and forth to get what you wanted?
Sanford: It varied by city. Many have required a fair amount of back and forth. It was clear that most jurisdictions had never dealt with this type of request before.
I got a call from one records officer who wanted to know more about what I was looking for and how they could help. They said it was the first time they’d dealt with a request of that type, and they weren’t really sure how to process it. I’ve had similar questions from several records officers.
Mahadevan: Were you surprised they complied? Surprised they even kept the records?
Sanford: I really wasn’t sure what to expect.
The story I published ended up focusing on two Washington cities: Bellingham and Everett. We ended up focusing on those cities because they were the fastest and most responsive to my records request. They aren’t necessarily outliers in their use of AI.
Bellingham and Everett both deserve a lot of credit for acting in good faith and doing their best to provide a comprehensive response to my (very time-consuming) records request. Some cities haven’t been as cooperative or transparent. I’m aware that this type of request is expansive and a big lift for records officers and respondents. But I also think it’s important for transparency. Citizens have a right to know how their representatives are using these tools.
Mahadevan: Were you surprised by the widespread use of ChatGPT you found?
Sanford: I knew the technology was widespread in the private sector. I expected that it would also be present in government, but I really didn’t expect it to be this widespread. I hadn’t heard any public communication from governments about how or if they’d be using it.
Mahadevan: What are some tips you’d give to another local reporter looking to do the same thing?
Sanford: Request records from CoPilot as well as ChatGPT: When I first tried filing these records requests, I tried asking for chat logs from every AI chatbot city staff have used. Records officers told me that was too vague and expansive. For simplicity, I ended up limiting the requests to ChatGPT, the world’s most popular chatbot.
Requesting ChatGPT logs was fruitful, but going forward, I think requesting Copilot chatlogs will be even more valuable. Microsoft made its chatbot available to government clients earlier this year, and many jurisdictions are now instructing staff to only use Copilot. I’d recommend that reporters look for records from Copilot as well as ChatGPT. (Depending on how much time you have, it could also be worth filing additional requests for records from Claude, Grok, etc.)
Provide detailed instructions: When I first started filing requests, some city employees responded by simply taking screenshots of every ChatGPT conversation they’d had — sometimes on their mobile phone. This was incredibly chaotic and difficult to sort through. It also meant that I couldn’t see the date the messages were sent or the order they were supposed to be in.
To make things easier, I started asking records officers to send city staff instructions for how to export their ChatGPT histories into a zipped folder. The .ZIP file format is ideal because it gives you:
- An easily readable HTML file of the chats in chronological order.
- A JSON file of the email the user signed up for ChatGPT with.
- A JSON file of the chat history that includes timestamps.
- Copies of any files the user uploaded into ChatGPT, and copies of any images ChatGPT generated in response to their requests.
The datestamps are in Unix time, so you’ll need to use a free online converter to decipher them.
Call records officers: If the request is taking a while, I would absolutely recommend calling records officers to explain what you’re looking for and ask how you can help make their job easier. The cities that have been most responsive to my request so far — Bellingham and Everett — responded by sending an email to literally every single city employee asking them to turn over their ChatGPT history. It took about five months for them to close out the request.
Figure out a good file management system: The volume of records returned in response to my requests was massive. I’d recommend that reporters figure out a file management system that works for them early on so they don’t lose track of documents. I organized things by taking a screenshot of every interesting message I came across and saving those screenshots to a group of desktop folders organized by city/topic. Most of the chat logs came back as HTML files that let you search to find keywords.
Mahadevan: What did your requests look like?
Sanford: Here’s a template. I’d recommend narrowing the scope a bit if you’re looking for something specific and hoping to get a faster response.
Pursuant to the Washington Public Records Act, I am requesting the following records:
Chat histories of all ChatGPT sessions conducted by city employees on city-owned devices or used in job-related functions in the following departments: City Council, Mayor’s Office, Police, City Attorney, Public Works, Information Technology, TKTKTK and TKTKT.
The timeframe for this request is 1/6/2023 to the date this request is processed. The requested documents will be made available to the general public and this request is not being made for commercial purposes. Please make records available in installments as they are ready to release.
If it’s helpful, please share with respondents the following instructions for exporting ChatGPT histories:
- **Click on your name or profile icon** (bottom-left corner of the ChatGPT interface).
- Select **”Settings”**.
- Go to the **”Data Controls”** tab.
- Click **”Export data”**.
- A pop-up will appear — click **”Confirm export”**.
- OpenAI will email you a download link with a `.zip` file containing your chat history in JSON format (and HTML for easy viewing).
Mahadevan: Any interesting chat logs that didn’t make it into the story?
Sanford: There were so many!
I think the original draft I turned in was almost 10,000 words. I’m thankful to my editors for helping me trim it.
There was lots of small, silly stuff. There were also lots of really interesting examples that shed light on how city leaders are thinking about various policy questions. It was illuminating to see which topics popped up most frequently. (Washington has a huge housing crisis, and there were numerous examples of officials asking ChatGPT for advice on how to increase housing affordability.)
A lot of the chats had sensitive personal information that was really interesting, but not necessarily newsworthy enough for us to publish.
There are a few chat logs that we’re holding on to because they raise legal questions and require more reporting before we can publish.
Mahadevan: What kind of reception have you gotten from the community?
Sanford: The reception has been really positive! It’s clear that most people had no idea that their local government leaders were using AI this way. The story prompted newspaper editorials in both Bellingham and Everett calling for city leaders to approach AI with more caution.
Generative AI is such a new technology that there’s no real consensus on what the norms should be. Does it matter that the mayor’s assistant used ChatGPT to write a letter to a congressman? Or that communications staff used it to respond to emails from constituents? We’ve heard from a lot of readers who are upset about that, but we’ve also heard from people who say they don’t care. I think both perspectives are valid. It’s really interesting seeing people grappling with where the line should be.
It’s clear that local governments have been experimenting with this technology for a while, but there hasn’t been much public discussion about it. I’m glad to see that the story has sparked a really robust debate.
I’ve also heard from lots of reporters in newsrooms across the country who are planning to copy the records request in their respective jurisdictions.
Mahadevan: Got any other follow-ups planned?
Sanford: I have several follow-ups planned. I’m continuing to regularly receive new installments from other Washington jurisdictions. There are a few specific chat records we’ve obtained that require more reporting before we can publish.
Mahadevan: Do you personally use generative AI for anything?
Sanford: It isn’t technically generative AI, but I use Otter.ai every day for transcribing interviews. It’s incredibly helpful.
I’ve experimented with ChatGPT for generating headline ideas, but I haven’t been super impressed with any of its suggestions. I’ve found it helpful for a few computer/coding related questions, but I don’t feel comfortable using it for writing.
I think there probably are ways that generative AI can be helpful for newsrooms, but I’m still pretty wary of it. I’m worried about accuracy, public trust and plagiarism.