←back to thread

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

(www.nytimes.com)
443 points jaredwiener | 3 comments | 26 Aug 25 14:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.636s | source
Show context
podgietaru ◴[26 Aug 25 21:56 UTC] No.45032841[source]▶
I have looked suicide in the eyes before. And reading the case file for this is absolutely horrific. He wanted help. He was heading in the direction of help, and he was stopped from getting it.

He wanted his parents to find out about his plan. I know this feeling. It is the clawing feeling of knowing that you want to live, despite feeling like you want to die.

We are living in such a horrific moment. We need these things to be legislated. Punished. We need to stop treating them as magic. They had the tools to prevent this. They had the tools to stop the conversation. To steer the user into helpful avenues.

When I was suicidal, I googled methods. And I got the number of a local hotline. And I rang it. And a kind man talked me down. And it potentially saved my life. And I am happier, now. I live a worthwhile life, now.

But at my lowest.. An AI Model designed to match my tone and be sycophantic to my every whim. It would have killed me.

replies(18): >>45032890 #>>45035840 #>>45035988 #>>45036257 #>>45036299 #>>45036318 #>>45036341 #>>45036513 #>>45037567 #>>45037905 #>>45038285 #>>45038393 #>>45039004 #>>45047014 #>>45048457 #>>45048890 #>>45052019 #>>45066389 #
charcircuit ◴[27 Aug 25 05:46 UTC] No.45035840[source]▶
>We need these things to be legislated. Punished.

I disagree. We don't need the government to force companies to babysit people instead of allowing people to understand their options. It's purely up to the individual to decide what they want to do with their life.

>They had the tools to stop the conversation.

So did the user. If he didn't want to talk to a chatbot he could have stopped at any time.

>To steer the user into helpful avenues.

Having AI purposefully manipulate its users towards the morals of the company is more harmful.

replies(6): >>45035901 #>>45035911 #>>45035916 #>>45037107 #>>45037261 #>>45038349 #
1. vasco ◴[27 Aug 25 09:05 UTC] No.45037107[source]▶
One thing about suicide is I'm pretty sure for as many people that get stopped in the last moment there are many for which the tiny thing could've stopped them, didn't.

The same way seeing a hotline might save one person, to another it'll make no difference and seeing a happy family on the street will be the trigger for them to kill themselves.

In our sadness we try to find things to blame in the tools the person used just before, or to perform the act, but it's just sad.

Nobody blames a bridge, but it has as much fault as anything else.

replies(1): >>45037450 #
2. podgietaru ◴[27 Aug 25 09:55 UTC] No.45037450[source]▶
There was a fascinating article I read a while back about Sylvia Plath, and the idea that she likely wouldn't have commited suicide a few years later due to the removal of that method.

It was mostly about the access of guns in the US, and the role that plays in suicidality. I cannot for the life of me find it, but I believe it was based on this paper: https://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/law/law%20review/V17-3/Goul...

Which was summarised by NPR here: https://www.npr.org/2008/07/08/92319314/in-suicide-preventio...

When it comes to suicide, it's a complicated topic. There was also the incident with 13 reasons why. Showing suicide in media also grants permission structures to those who are in that state, and actually increases the rate of suicide in the general population.

Where I lie on this is there is a modicum of responsibility that companies need to have. Making access harder to that information ABSOLUTELY saves lives, when it comes to asking how. And giving easy access to suicide prevention resources can also help.

replies(1): >>45037532 #
3. maxweylandt ◴[27 Aug 25 10:06 UTC] No.45037532[source]▶
another example: packing paracetamol in blister packs seems to have reduced suicides.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC526120/

> Suicidal deaths from paracetamol and salicylates were reduced by 22% (95% confidence interval 11% to 32%) in the year after the change in legislation on 16 September 1998, and this reduction persisted in the next two years. Liver unit admissions and liver transplants for paracetamol induced hepatotoxicity were reduced by around 30% in the four years after the legislation.

(This was posted here on HN in the thread on the new paracetamol in utero study that I can't seem to dig up right now)