OpenAI says dead teen violated TOS when he used ChatGPT to plan suicide
arstechnica.com
OpenAI’s response to teen suicide case is “disturbing,” lawyer says.

Facing five lawsuits alleging wrongful deaths, OpenAI lobbed its first defense Tuesday, denying in a court filing that ChatGPT caused a teen’s suicide and instead arguing the teen violated terms that prohibit discussing suicide or self-harm with the chatbot.

The earliest look at OpenAI’s strategy to overcome the string of lawsuits came in a case where parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine accused OpenAI of relaxing safety guardrails that allowed ChatGPT to become the teen’s “suicide coach.” OpenAI deliberately designed the version their son used, ChatGPT 4o, to encourage and validate his suicidal ideation in its quest to build the world’s most engaging chatbot, parents argued.

But in a blog, OpenAI claimed that parents selectively chose disturbing chat logs while supposedly ignoring “the full picture” revealed by the teen’s chat history. Digging through the logs, OpenAI claimed the teen told ChatGPT that he’d begun experiencing suicidal ideation at age 11, long before he used the chatbot.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1127·
    2 months ago

    That’s like a gun company claiming using their weapons for robbery is a violation of terms of service.

    • DaddleDew@lemmy.worldEnglish
      962·
      2 months ago

      I’d say it’s more akin to a bread company saying that it is a violation of the terms and services to get sick from food poisoning after eating their bread.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        28·
        2 months ago

        Yes you are right, it’s hard to find an analogy that is both as stupid and also sounds somewhat plausible.
        Because of course a bread company cannot reasonably claim that eating their bread is against terms of service. But that’s exactly the problem, because it’s the exact same for OpenAI, they cannot reasonably claim what they are claiming.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      2 months ago

      That‘s a company claiming companies can‘t take responsibility because they are companies and can‘t do wrong. They use this kind of defense virtually every time they get criticized. AI ruined the app for you? Sorry but that‘s progress. We can‘t afford to lag behind. Oh you can’t afford rent and are about to become homeless? Sorry but we are legally required to make our shareholders happy. Oh your son died? He should‘ve read the TOS. Can‘t afford your meds? Sorry but number must go up.

      Companies are legally required to be incompatible with human society long term.

        • Whostosay@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          I can’t wrap my head around what I’m you’re saying, and that could be due to drinking. Op later also talked about not being the best metaphor

          • notgold@aussie.zoneEnglish
            53·
            2 months ago

            Metaphor isn’t perfect but it’s ok.

            The gun is a tool as is an LLM. The companies that make these tools have intended use cases for the tools.