←back to thread

A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in

(www.nytimes.com)
443 points jaredwiener | 1 comments | 26 Aug 25 14:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
broker354690 ◴[26 Aug 25 23:26 UTC] No.45033596[source]▶
Why isn't OpenAI criminally liable for this?

Last I checked:

-Signals emitted by a machine at the behest of a legal person intended to be read/heard by another legal person are legally classified as 'speech'.

-ChatGPT is just a program like Microsoft Word and not a legal person. OpenAI is a legal person, though.

-The servers running ChatGPT are owned by OpenAI.

-OpenAI willingly did business with this teenager, letting him set up an account in exchange for money. This business is a service under the control of OpenAI, not a product like a knife or gun. OpenAI intended to transmit speech to this teenager.

-A person can be liable (civilly? criminally?) for inciting another person's suicide. It is not protected speech to persuade someone into suicide.

-OpenAI produced some illegal speech and sent it to a suicidal teenager, who then committed suicide.

If Sam Altman stabbed the kid to death, it wouldn't matter if he did it on accident. Sam Altman would be at fault. You wouldn't sue or arrest the knife he used to do the deed.

Any lawyers here who can correct me, seeing as I am not one? It seems clear as day to me that OpenAI/Sam Altman directly encouraged a child to kill themselves.

replies(6): >>45033677 #>>45035753 #>>45036119 #>>45036667 #>>45036842 #>>45038959 #
rideontime ◴[26 Aug 25 23:37 UTC] No.45033677[source]▶
Perhaps this is being downvoted due to the singling out of Sam Altman. According to the complaint, he personally ordered that the usual safety tests be skipped in order to release this model earlier than an upcoming Gemini release, tests that allegedly would catch precisely this sort of behavior. If these allegations hold true, he’s culpable.
replies(1): >>45033747 #
1. broker354690 ◴[26 Aug 25 23:45 UTC] No.45033747[source]▶
I would go further than that and question whether or not the notions of "safety" and "guardrails" have any legal meaning here at all. If I sold a bomb to a child and printed the word "SAFE" on it, that wouldn't make it safe. Kid blows himself up, no one would be convinced of the bomb's safety at the trial. Likewise, where's the proof that sending a particular input into the LLM renders it "safe" to offer as a service in which it emits speech to children?