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

(www.nytimes.com)

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 #

1. blackqueeriroh ◴[27 Aug 25 07:50 UTC] No.45036667[source]▶

>>45033596 #

Section 230, without which Hacker News wouldn’t exist.

replies(6): >>45036760 #>>45036811 #>>45036997 #>>45038072 #>>45047054 #>>45048380 #

2. CGamesPlay ◴[27 Aug 25 08:05 UTC] No.45036760[source]▶

>>45036667 (TP) #

Can you outline how that applies? OpenAI did not provide information of another information content provider, so I fail to see how it's relevant.

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

3. pengaru ◴[27 Aug 25 08:14 UTC] No.45036811[source]▶

>>45036667 (TP) #

If Section 230 protects this activity, then "Gen AI" output must be copyright violating plagiarism.

If it's not plagiarism, then OpenAI is on the hook.

4. _Algernon_ ◴[27 Aug 25 08:47 UTC] No.45036997[source]▶

>>45036667 (TP) #

>In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by their users. (Emphasis mine)

So either the content is user generated and their training of the model should be copyright infringement, or it's not and Section 230 does not apply and this is speech for which Open AI is responsible.

5. slipperydippery ◴[27 Aug 25 11:18 UTC] No.45038072[source]▶

>>45036667 (TP) #

It wasn’t some other user posting this. Their own software was generating the responses. That’s not 230.

6. broker354690 ◴[28 Aug 25 00:49 UTC] No.45047054[source]▶

>>45036667 (TP) #

Section 230? I didn't know the outputs of ChatGPT were content generated by random users on the net. Does this mean AI truly stands for 'Actual Indians'?

Preposterous.

7. jrflowers ◴[28 Aug 25 04:27 UTC] No.45048380[source]▶

>>45036667 (TP) #

I like this post because the implication is that there’s a law called Section 230 that means everything is legal online. Like “that would be totally illegal but it happened on the information superhighway, section 230 baybee!!”

↑