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
    844·
    3 days ago

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

    • DaddleDew@lemmy.worldEnglish
      751·
      3 days ago

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

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        25·
        3 days 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.

      • vurr@lemmy.todayEnglish
        0·
        3 days ago

        That would imply that he wasn’t suicidal before. If chatgpt didn’t exist he would just use Google.

        • DaddleDew@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 days ago

          Look up the phenomenon called “Chatbot Psychosis”. In its current form, especially with GPT4 that was specifically designed to be a manipulative yes-man, chatbots can absolutely insidiously mess up someone’s head enough to push them to the act far beyond just answering the question of how to do it like a simple web search would.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 days 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.

    • gian @lemmy.grys.itEnglish
      01·
      3 days ago

      I would say that it is more like a software company putting in their TOS that you cannot use their software to do a specific thing(s).
      Would be correct to sue the software company because a user violated the TOS ?

      I agree that what happened is tragic and that the answer by OpenAI is beyond stupid but in the end they are suing the owner of a technology for a uses misuse of said technology. Or should we sue also Wikipedia because someone looked up how to hang himself ?

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

      The gun company can rightfully say that what you do with your property is not their problem.

      But let’s make a less controversial example: do you think you can sue a fishing rods company because I use one of their rods to whip you ?

  • ryper@lemmy.caEnglish
    50·
    3 days ago

    “Our deepest sympathies are with the Raine family for their unimaginable loss,” OpenAI said in its blog, while its filing acknowledged, “Adam Raine’s death is a tragedy.” But “at the same time,” it’s essential to consider all the available context, OpenAI’s filing said, including that OpenAI has a mission to build AI that “benefits all of humanity” and is supposedly a pioneer in chatbot safety.

    How the fuck is OpenAI’s mission relevant to the case? Are suggesting that their mission is worth a few deaths?

  • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    20·
    3 days ago

    The police also violated my Terms of Service when they arrested me for that armed bank robbery I was allegedly committing. This is a serious problem in our society people; something must be done!

  • myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zipEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    The biggest issue to me is that the kid didn’t feel safe enough to talk to his parents. And that mental health, globally, is taboo and ignored and not something we talk about. As someone part of the mental health system, it’s a joke how bad it is.

  • buttnugget@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    A big part of the problem is that people think they’re talking to something intelligent that understands them and knows how many instances of letters words have.

  • cmbabul@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    Just going through this thread and blocking anyone defending OpenAI or AI in general, your opinions are trash and your breath smells like boot leather