Abstract
The paper reports the results of an experiment aimed at testing to what extent ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 is able to answer questions regarding privacy policies designed in the new format that we propose. In a world of human-only interpreters, there was a trade-off between comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of privacy policies, leading to the actual policies not containing enough information for users to learn anything meaningful. Having shown that GPT performs relatively well with the new format, we provide experimental evidence supporting our policy suggestion, namely that the law should require fully comprehensive privacy policies, even if this means they become less concise.