[flagged]
Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
91–100 of 147 posts
Re: Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
#92these cases have to play out to decide how to regulate "AI safety" otherwise legislative bodies and agency rulemakers are just guessing at industry trends nobody knew about "AI memory and sycophancy based on it being a hit with user engagement metrics" a year ago, not law makers, not the companies that implemented it, not the freaked out companies that implemented it solely to compete for stickiness
How many people do you think need to die before we have adequate AI safety laws?
given that AI isn’t killing people in this arc, mental health issues are
Id say a few more
Re: Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
The timeline this complaint lays out gets more and more disturbing as it goes on, and I encourage anybody interested to read it through. In my opinion this goes way beyond LLM puffery. From the Statement of Facts, page 8 (by the footer), line 25: 31. ChatGPT then began weaving each of Mr. Soelberg’s identified threats into a broader narrative, convincing Mr. Soelberg that he was part of a coordinated campaign of assa…
What if a human had done this?
They’d likely be held culpable and prosecuted. People have encouraged others to commit crimes before and they have been convicted for it. It’s not new.
What’s new is a company releasing a product that does the same and then claiming they can’t be held accountable for what their product does.
Wait, that’s not new either.
Re: Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
#94Shocking but not suprising. ChatGPT subtly reinforces almost everything one says to it. All the highly paid employees of OpenAI no doubt will find ways to justify this to themselves and keep churning out the next iteration. The end is nigh.
Re: Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
#95We went through this before when role playing started to become a thing (DnD was blamed for many suicides although most claims were debunked). Now that role playing is comprehensively computerized, is this going to be a thing we go through again? I can’t help but wonder how AI safeguards will help here and how people will get around them anyways (using local uncensored models).
If that is truly your opinion, you should really read up on the Satanic Panic. Equivocating between these two events is simply foolish.
Re: Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
#96would it be any different if they were inspired by a book?
Would we then limit what you could write about?
Re: Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
#97[deleted]
Re: Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It does not pass the "friend test" [...] not a valid legal issue. What legal doctrine is that, and can you point towards precedent? Or is it one of those "I feel like the law should" situations?
Yes, it is called free speech, as is already duly noted in my parent comment which you may read again. In fact, the responsibility to note a legal doctrine of wrongdoing is entirely yours.
That’s not what free speech means.
Re: Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
#99[flagged]
That’s already existed many times throughout history. For most of human history, in fact.
Those with the rights will simply continue to narrow who qualifies for rights until only a small ruling class has any.
Re: Court report detailing ChatGPT's involvement with a recent murder suicide [pdf]
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
All models are not the same. GPT 4o, and specific versions of it, were particularly sycophantic, and it’s something models still do a bit too much, but the models are getting better at this and will continue to do so.
What does "better" mean? From the provider's point of view, better means "more engagement," which means that the people who respond well to sycophantic behavior will get exactly that.
There’s a bunch to explore on this but im thinking this is a good entry point. NYT instead of OpenAI docs or blogs because it’s a 3rd party, and NYT was early on substantively exploring this, culminating in this article.
Regardless the engagement thing is dark and hangs over everything, the conclusion of the article made me :/ re: this (tl;dr this surprised them, they worked to mitigate, but business as usual wins, to wit, they declared a “code red” re: ChatGPT usage nearly directly after finally getting an improved model out that they worked hard on)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/23/technology/openai-chatgpt...
Some pull quotes:
“ Experts agree that the new model, GPT-5, is safer. In October, Common Sense Media and a team of psychiatrists at Stanford compared it to the 4o model it replaced. GPT-5 was better at detecting mental health issues, said Dr. Nina Vasan, the director of the Stanford lab that worked on the study. She said it gave advice targeted to a given condition, like depression or an eating disorder, rather than a generic recommendation to call a crisis hotline.
“It went a level deeper to actually give specific recommendations to the user based on the specific symptoms that they were showing,” she said. “They were just truly beautifully done.”
The only problem, Dr. Vasan said, was that the chatbot could not pick up harmful patterns over a longer conversation, with many exchanges.”
“[An] M.I.T. lab that did [a] earlier study with OpenAI also found that the new model was significantly improved during conversations mimicking mental health crises. One area where it still faltered, however, was in how it responded to feelings of addiction to chatbots.”