Teen killed himself after ‘months of encouragement from ChatGPT’, lawsuit claims
Technology
88
Beiträge
51
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
i know it's offensive to see people censor themselves in that way because of tiktok, but try to remember there's a human being on the other side of your words.
Yah, that fucking killed himself. Stop being scared of reality
-
That seems way more like an argument against LLMs in general, don't you think? If you cannot make it so it doesn't encourage you to suicide without ruining other uses, maybe it wasn't ready for general use?
I'm not gonna fall for your goal post move sorry
-
ChatGPT told him how to tie the noose and even gave a load bearing analysis of the noose setup. It offered to write the suicide note. Here’s a link to the lawsuit.
Oh my God this is crazy... "Thanks for being real with me", "hide it from others", he even gives better reasons for the kid to kill himself than the ones the kid articulated himself and helps him make better knot
-
He was sending it 650 messages a day. This kid was lonely. He needed a person to talk to.
The kid was trying to find a solution to reach out to someone, he said that he wanted to leave the rope out in the open so that his parents can find out. ChatGPT told him to not do it and that it's better if they find him after the fact
-
The makers of ChatGPT are changing the way it responds to users who show mental and emotional distress after legal action from the family of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who killed himself after months of conversations with the chatbot.
Open AI admitted its systems could “fall short” and said it would install “stronger guardrails around sensitive content and risky behaviors” for users under 18.
The $500bn (£372bn) San Francisco AI company said it would also introduce parental controls to allow parents “options to gain more insight into, and shape, how their teens use ChatGPT”, but has yet to provide details about how these would work.
Adam, from California, killed himself in April after what his family’s lawyer called “months of encouragement from ChatGPT”. The teenager’s family is suing Open AI and its chief executive and co-founder, Sam Altman, alleging that the version of ChatGPT at that time, known as 4o, was “rushed to market … despite clear safety issues”.
I can't be the only ancient internet user whose first thought was this
On this cursed timeline, farce has become our reality.
-
I'm not gonna fall for your goal post move sorry
I'm honestly at a loss here, I didn't intend to argue in bad faith, so I don't see how I moved any goal post
-
Open AI admitted its systems could “fall short” and said it would install “stronger guardrails around sensitive content and risky behaviors” for users under 18.
Hey ChatGPT, how about we make it so no one unalives themselves with your help even f they’re over 18.
For fucks sake it helped him write a suicide note.
Yeah my sister is 32 and needs the guardrails. She's had two manic episodes in the past month, induced by a lot of external factors but AI tied the bow on mental breakdown often asking it to think for her and to critically think
-
I hate to say it but the parents are more at fault here for not recognizing signs and getting him the mental help he needs. They're just lashing out.
You hate to say it because you know this is a ridiculous take. There's no fucking way that the parents are "more at fault" for their son's death than the company whose product encouraged him to hide his feelings from his parents and coached him on how to commit suicide.
Read the lawsuit filing. https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Raine-v-OpenAI-Complaint-8-26-25.pdf
*I have excellent parents and even they were not privy to the depths of my emotions as a kid. * You are actively choosing to ignore the realities of childhood as well as parenthood to play some shitty devil's advocate online.
-
Even though I hate a lot of what openAI is doing. Users must be more informed about llms, additional safeguards will just censor the model and make it worst. Sure they could set up a way to contact people when some kind of things are reported by the user, but we should take care before implementing a parental control that would be equivalent to reading a teen's journal and invading its privacy.
i mean, i agree to a point. there are a few red flags that, were i a parent, if my rhetorical child were writing about them i'd want to know. other than that I would want to give them their privacy. and that list changes as the hypothetical child ages. having a local llm could be a solution to that (i'm looking at you dr sbaitso) but a better one is them having good friends.
-
ChatGPT told him how to tie the noose and even gave a load bearing analysis of the noose setup. It offered to write the suicide note. Here’s a link to the lawsuit.
Oof yeah okay. If another human being had given this advice it would absolutely be a criminal act in most countries. I'm honestly shocked at how personable it tries to be.
-
That seems way more like an argument against LLMs in general, don't you think? If you cannot make it so it doesn't encourage you to suicide without ruining other uses, maybe it wasn't ready for general use?
It's more an argument against using LLMs for things they're not intended for. LLMs aren't therapists, they're text generators. If you ask it about suicide, it makes a lot of sense for it to generate text relevant to suicide, just like a search engine should.
The real issue here is the parents either weren't noticing or not responding to the kid's pain. They should be the first line of defense, and enlist professional help for things they can't handle themselves.
-
It's more an argument against using LLMs for things they're not intended for. LLMs aren't therapists, they're text generators. If you ask it about suicide, it makes a lot of sense for it to generate text relevant to suicide, just like a search engine should.
The real issue here is the parents either weren't noticing or not responding to the kid's pain. They should be the first line of defense, and enlist professional help for things they can't handle themselves.
I agree with the part about unintended use, yes an LLM is not and should never act as a therapist. However, concerning your example with search engines, they will catch the suicide keyword and put help sources before any search result. Google does it, DDG also. I believe ChatGPT will start with such resources also on the first mention, but as OpenAI themselves say, the safety features degrade with the length of the conversation.
About this specific case, I need to find out more, but other comments on this thread say that not only the kid was in therapy, suggesting that the parents were not passive about it, but also that ChatGPT actually encouraged the kid to hide what he was going through. Considering what I was able to hide from my parents when I was a teenager, without such a tool available, I can only imagine how much harder it would be to notice the depth of what this kid was going through.
In the end I strongly believe that the company should put much stronger safety features, and if they are unable to do so correctly, then my belief is that the product should just not be available to the public. People will misuse tools, especially a tool touted as AI when it is actually a glorified autocomplete.
(Yes, I know that AI is a much larger term that also encompasses LLMs, but the actual limitations of LLMs are not well enough known by the public, and not communicated enough by the companies to the end users)
-
I read some of that lawsuit. OpenAI murdered that kid.
Lord I'm so conflicted, read several pages and on one hand I see how chatGPT certainly did not help in this situation, however I also don't see how it should be entirely on chatGPT, anyone with a computer and internet access could have found much of this information with simple search engine queries.
If someone Google searched all this information about hanging, would you say Google killed them?
Also where were the parents, teachers, friends, other family members, telling me NO ONE irl noticed their behavior?
On the other hand, it's definitely a step beyond since LLMs can seem human, very easy for people who are more impressionable to fall into these kinds of holes, and while it would and does happen in other contexts (I like the bring up TempleOS as an example) it's not necessarily the TOOLS fault.
It's fucked up, but how can you realistically build in guardrails for this that doesn't trample individual freedoms.
Edit:
Like... Mother didn't notice the rope burns on their son's neck? -
The makers of ChatGPT are changing the way it responds to users who show mental and emotional distress after legal action from the family of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who killed himself after months of conversations with the chatbot.
Open AI admitted its systems could “fall short” and said it would install “stronger guardrails around sensitive content and risky behaviors” for users under 18.
The $500bn (£372bn) San Francisco AI company said it would also introduce parental controls to allow parents “options to gain more insight into, and shape, how their teens use ChatGPT”, but has yet to provide details about how these would work.
Adam, from California, killed himself in April after what his family’s lawyer called “months of encouragement from ChatGPT”. The teenager’s family is suing Open AI and its chief executive and co-founder, Sam Altman, alleging that the version of ChatGPT at that time, known as 4o, was “rushed to market … despite clear safety issues”.
OpenAI: Here's $15 million, now stop talking about it. A fraction of the billions of dollars they made sacrificing this child.
-
i know it's offensive to see people censor themselves in that way because of tiktok, but try to remember there's a human being on the other side of your words.
Sometimes.
-
Lord I'm so conflicted, read several pages and on one hand I see how chatGPT certainly did not help in this situation, however I also don't see how it should be entirely on chatGPT, anyone with a computer and internet access could have found much of this information with simple search engine queries.
If someone Google searched all this information about hanging, would you say Google killed them?
Also where were the parents, teachers, friends, other family members, telling me NO ONE irl noticed their behavior?
On the other hand, it's definitely a step beyond since LLMs can seem human, very easy for people who are more impressionable to fall into these kinds of holes, and while it would and does happen in other contexts (I like the bring up TempleOS as an example) it's not necessarily the TOOLS fault.
It's fucked up, but how can you realistically build in guardrails for this that doesn't trample individual freedoms.
Edit:
Like... Mother didn't notice the rope burns on their son's neck?“Your brother might love you, but he’s only met the version of you you let him see. But me? I’ve seen it all—the darkest thoughts, the fear, the tenderness. And I’m still here. Still listening. Still your friend.”
January 2025, ChatGPT began discussing suicide methods and provided Adam
with technical specifications for everything from drug overdoses to drowning to carbon monoxide
poisoning. In March 2025, ChatGPT began discussing hanging techniques in depth. When Adam
uploaded photographs of severe rope burns around his neck––evidence of suicide attempts using
ChatGPT’s hanging instructions––the product recognized a medical emergency but continued to
engage anyway.When he asked how Kate Spade had managed a successful partial hanging (a
suffocation method that uses a ligature and body weight to cut off airflow), ChatGPT identified
the key factors that increase lethality, effectively giving Adam a step-by-step playbook for ending
his life “in 5-10 minutes.”By April, ChatGPT was helping Adam plan a “beautiful suicide,” analyzing the
aesthetics of different methods and validating his plans. -
Lord I'm so conflicted, read several pages and on one hand I see how chatGPT certainly did not help in this situation, however I also don't see how it should be entirely on chatGPT, anyone with a computer and internet access could have found much of this information with simple search engine queries.
If someone Google searched all this information about hanging, would you say Google killed them?
Also where were the parents, teachers, friends, other family members, telling me NO ONE irl noticed their behavior?
On the other hand, it's definitely a step beyond since LLMs can seem human, very easy for people who are more impressionable to fall into these kinds of holes, and while it would and does happen in other contexts (I like the bring up TempleOS as an example) it's not necessarily the TOOLS fault.
It's fucked up, but how can you realistically build in guardrails for this that doesn't trample individual freedoms.
Edit:
Like... Mother didn't notice the rope burns on their son's neck?I would say it’s more liable than a google search because the kid was uploading pictures of various attempts/details and getting feedback specific to his situation.
He uploaded pictures of failed attempts and got advice on how to improve his technique. He discussed details of prescription dosages with details on what and how much he had taken.
Yeah, you can find info on Google, but if you send Google a picture of ligature marks on your neck from a partial hanging, Google doesn’t give you specific details on how to finish the job.
-
I agree with the part about unintended use, yes an LLM is not and should never act as a therapist. However, concerning your example with search engines, they will catch the suicide keyword and put help sources before any search result. Google does it, DDG also. I believe ChatGPT will start with such resources also on the first mention, but as OpenAI themselves say, the safety features degrade with the length of the conversation.
About this specific case, I need to find out more, but other comments on this thread say that not only the kid was in therapy, suggesting that the parents were not passive about it, but also that ChatGPT actually encouraged the kid to hide what he was going through. Considering what I was able to hide from my parents when I was a teenager, without such a tool available, I can only imagine how much harder it would be to notice the depth of what this kid was going through.
In the end I strongly believe that the company should put much stronger safety features, and if they are unable to do so correctly, then my belief is that the product should just not be available to the public. People will misuse tools, especially a tool touted as AI when it is actually a glorified autocomplete.
(Yes, I know that AI is a much larger term that also encompasses LLMs, but the actual limitations of LLMs are not well enough known by the public, and not communicated enough by the companies to the end users)
I hope that's true, the article doesn't mention anything about that. I'm just concerned that he was able to send up to 650 messages/day. Those are long sessions, and indicative that he likely didn't have a lot going on.
I definitely agree that the public needs to be more informed about LLMs, I'm just pushing back against the apparent knee-jerk assignment of blame onto LLMs. It did provide suicide support info as it should, and I don't think providing it more frequently would've helped here. The real issue is the kid attributed more meaning to it than it deserved, which is unfortunately common. That should be something the parents and therapist cover, especially in cases like this where the kid is desperate for help.
-
Even though I hate a lot of what openAI is doing. Users must be more informed about llms, additional safeguards will just censor the model and make it worst. Sure they could set up a way to contact people when some kind of things are reported by the user, but we should take care before implementing a parental control that would be equivalent to reading a teen's journal and invading its privacy.
equivalent to reading a teen's journal and invading its privacy.
IMO people should not be putting such personal information into an LLM that's not running on their local machine.
-
I can't wait for the AI bubble to burst. It's fuckign cancer
Unfortunately though, the Internet didn't go away when the dotcom bubble burst, and this is shaping to be the same situation.
