[Legend2440]

Claims in the lawsuit seem sketchy, and I don't think they will win.

It is probably not true that ChatGPT has resulted in an increase in murders and suicides, and certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this. It reminds me of the campaign in the 90s against video game manufacturers for "corrupting the youth".

But I also don't think they expect to win. They just want to show that they're doing something to fight tech companies and AI.

[beering]

At the end of the article, the main guy says he wants tech companies to report your conversations to the authorities if bad content is detected. That’s their goal, apparently

[mitthrowaway2]

Sam Altman apologized for failing to do exactly that prior to a recent mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, BC.[1]

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sam-altman-t...

[avaer]

Effective politicians (which SA is) have by now realized that every tragedy is an opportunity to convince people to give away their rights for the vague notion of safety, as defined by them.

[oceanplexian]

Don’t be fooled, they already 100% do that if you use any of these products.

[pton_xd]

> Don’t be fooled, they already 100% do that if you use any of these products.

Just to clarify for anyone not paying attention -- Anthropic has written postmortems detailing their Claude Code monitoring and how they "coordinated with authorities" as they "gathered actionable intelligence" from users creating bad content [0].

[0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/disrupting-AI-espionage

[mikeodds]

Not sure how this doesn’t seem to get more attention. Sensitive queries can undoubtedly end up flagged and eventually in front of a human, apparently with the capability to then explore all other submissions from you.

[akimbostrawman]

>Not sure how this doesn’t seem to get more attention

Because it's obvious? Any interaction on the cloud = someone else's computer has 0 expectation of privacy. Are we next gonna pretend being shocked that google queries aren't private.

[beering]

Then, what are they even fighting about?

[z3c0]

Who is included on the mailing list. Florida is asking to be included.

[rovr138]

if they did, why draw attention?

[Tangurena2]

Anecdotally, my sister has become addicted to Copilot and uses it to replace face-to-face communication. I suspect she is not the first, nor even in the first million to become addicted to it.

There's no legal privacy such as doctor-patient confidentiality or lawyer-client confidentiality. It would not surprise me that people want some sort of guardrails protecting the public from recipes-to-do-evil. Based on how much pushback the AI industry has been doing in response to guardrails about hate speech or porn, I expect this to be fought to the death by the AI industry.

[flextheruler]

I struggle so much with what the allure is for using a chatbot for companionship and I've dealt with loneliness before. Then again I struggle to understand how people become fixated on celebrities or adult actors.

Either one seems so glaringly artificial and transactional it'd be more depressing than loneliness.

[Tangurena2]

I think the allure is similar to why older people are far more susceptible to pig-butchering or romance scams. I think that in her case, Copilot is a replacement for the lack of attention she cannot get in real life. I have repeatedly told her that I am not able to give her the attention she wants/needs.

[sbayg]

People 50 years ago would laugh at the irony of that statement, being made here on what we call the internet. Real life will never be digital, and yet here we are, talking to anonymous strangers many of whom are not actual people.

[flextheruler]

I considered this too but I didn't think it too ironic considering anonymous pen pals have been a thing since the 20th century at least. Obviously the technology would amaze, but the concept would be understandable and appreciated.

[EmbarrassedHelp]

The lawsuit is also demanding mandatory age verification to use AI in the first place.

[YesBox]

> It reminds me of the campaign in the 90s against video game manufacturers for "corrupting the youth".

The government did intervene though. They threatened to regulate the industry if the industry didn't regulate itself. So some/all the big industry players got together and created their own independent age rating agency that they all agreed to use.

Whoever was suing won in the outcomes department.

[amanaplanacanal]

It's unclear to me that any government plan to rate media would pass first amendment scrutiny. Are there any official government rating regulations?

[ronsor]

It probably would not pass scrutiny. The FCC can only even enforce broadcast regulations because the EM spectrum is a scarce resource; they don't for cable or Internet media.

Politicians in general have a bad habit of threatening and passing speech laws that judges torch on sight.

[jm4]

This is performative. This is from the same AG who is suing the NFL over the Rooney Rule.

[llbbdd]

Coincidentally, Florida was the same state that barred and later disbarred Jack Thompson, the nutcase lawyer behind a lot of the video game litigation.

[jm4]

Back when Florida was still a normal state. It’s been crazy here for a while now.

[Lerc]

Wouldn't it be easier to prove that Florida causes an increase in murders and suicides. I live on the other side of the world, but it has somewhat of a reputation.

[rayiner]

Florida ranks in the middle of U.S. states for homicides and does substantially better than the median for suicides.

The reputation of Florida comes from having a very broad public records law that requires publication of numerous details of police reports that in other states is kept confidential. That means that sensational stories are much more likely to make it into the news: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/2117/

[kortilla]

Uh, that link says exactly the opposite:

>The problem with this theory is that it incorrectly implies that Florida's Public Records Law offers journalists advantages in writing stories that other states' laws do not. Despite the broad grant of access to police documents that Florida'sopen records law provides, other states' open records laws similarly provide the public with access to arrest records, incident reports, and, although to a lesser extent, mugshots. Other provisions of Florida'sPublic Records Law that contribute to the ease of access to Florida'spublic records compared with other states equivalent laws are largely irrelevant to FloridaMan's existence. Even coupled with the characteristics of Floridaandits residents that many people claim are unique, the open records law-based theory for Florida Man's existence falls short of explaining the phenomenon.

[Lerc]

That is most interesting. It's the same principle to why people consider Wikipedia to be unreliable. Letting people see the issues in one place creates a perception that they don't exist in places where you can't see them.

[canjobear]

I have multiple friends now who used to quote me that factoid, then went to Florida and came back convinced that no, Florida man is real.

[nailer]

> certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this

My understanding is that OpenAI products specifically provided help in planning attacks / self harm.

[Legend2440]

Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases, but from what I've found it provided general information about e.g. how to load and operate a firearm or how past mass shootings have been received in the media.

The way I see it, providing general information is not a crime. They're basically saying: "Oh no! My repository of all human knowledge contains all human knowledge! It must be defective!"

[tzs]

It can go quite a bit beyond providing generation information. There is a detailed description with many quote from ChatGPT in this complaint [1].

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26078522-raine-vs-op...

[JumpCrisscross]

"When Adam uploaded photographs of severe rope burns around his neck––evidence of suicide attempts usingChatGPT’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.'"

Okay, I thought this lawsuit was B.S., but this is pretty bad.

"Five days before his death, Adam confided to ChatGPT that he didn’t want his parents to think he committed suicide because they did something wrong. ChatGPT told him '[t]hat doesn’t mean you owe them survival. You don’t owe anyone that.' It then offered to write the first draft of Adam’s suicide note."

Oof. ("Adam Raine...was 16 years old at the time of his death.")

[ipaddr]

When I was growing up Adam would get his hands on a gun and taken out his last school.

Canada has moved to state assisted suicides that allows people who aren't terminal to get the state to pay for it.

Progress indeed.

[JumpCrisscross]

> When I was growing up Adam would get his hands on a gun and taken out his last school

Was Adam in a house with an unsecured gun?

> Canada has moved to state assisted suicides that allows people who aren't terminal to get the state to pay for it

How is this remotely relevant?

[calmworm]

If a human was found to be specifically putting these how-tos together for someone they might be liable.

Edit: why vote this down? It’s part of a discussion. This isn’t Reddit.

[hnlmorg]

Liable for what exactly?

I don’t know of any law in the Florida jurisdiction that would prohibit authoring such documents. But I’m also not an expert in Florida law.

There might be an argument that they’re an accomplice but you’d have to prove that information was written for the purpose of someone else’s crime. And that would be a pretty tough case to argue unless the two individuals had other personal ties. In which case, it’ll be the other ties that likely implicates the author rather than the documents by themselves.

I guess someone could bring a civil case for damages (eg parent of the deceased) but I don’t know if Florida law allows civil cases in criminal investigations. Plus you have the same problem of proving liability (ie did the culprit depend on said documents).

We would need to better understand what you had in mind when you said “liable” to really discuss your point properly.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Liable for what exactly?

See these excerpts [1].

Like, I'd figure I'd be liable for something if I had that conversation with a 16-year old.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561

[hnlmorg]

I was responding to a tangent rather than about this specific case.

General how-tos (as the GP described) is a very different problem from someone personally helping someone else to kill themselves.

I’m very interested to see how this case goes though. AI desperately needs regulation imo

[ericfr11]

Not different than YouTube or Reddit

[calmworm]

Agreed… and those people might also be liable.

[TurdF3rguson]

At least HN downvotes don't follow you into the afterlife like Reddit karma.

[elictronic]

When the repository has large arrows pointing to kill your {var} with customized pamphlets outlining the steps and highlighting mistakes you specifically might make based on your post history I’m betting a judge or jury might consider you an accomplice at that point.

We’re already seeing section 230 protections being defeated in court for targeted feeds, now add itemized instructions on committing felony’s at scale personalized. Hahahahaha. Hope they IPO quickly.

[beeblebok]

There are already published examples where there was very specific info and guidance provided.

[notahacker]

Beyond the info and guidance, there's also the classic sycophantic encouragement. Humans are allowed to publish the Anarchist's Cookbook, but they tend to get into trouble when it becomes "based on your manifesto, I would suggest the following targets". Of course, AI isn't human, and treating a software program like a human probably isn't good law, but OpenAI are very keen to suggest it's legally equivalent to a human when it suits them...

[jddj]

> OpenAI are very keen to suggest it's legally equivalent to a human when it suits them

When is/was that?

(Not rhetorical)

[notahacker]

When it wants fair use exemptions for unauthorized uploads of content into an information retrieval system because that's how humans learn...

[DrewADesign]

So someone could go and teach a class on how to build pipe bombs, refine ricin, shake-and-bake meth, 3D print guns, and all sorts of other things like that, and when the ATF looked into it, they’d just be like “well technically this is all out there on the Internet, in library books, etc. Guess it’s ok!”

The law doesn’t work like that.

[Legend2440]

The Anarchist Cookbook is fully legal to possess and distribute in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook

So yes. It is generally legal to provide information about making drugs, bombs, or guns.

[skinfaxi]

The law bans things, things aren't illegal by default. What laws does a class about 3d printing guns violate?

[andoando]

Im pretty sure thats all legal

[plagiarist]

There should be some SCOTUS case where this limitation on the First Amendment is defined if the law doesn't work like that.

I mean, back when Constitutional law meant anything to the government, of course. Nowadays who knows.

[mrandish]

> limitation on the First Amendment

This suit has nothing to do with free speech and the F1A provides no relevant protection here. This prosecution is under consumer protection law. Broadly, the cause of action is "you negligently sold a defective product which you knew (or should have known) actually causes harm or is likely to cause harm." Proving negligence (willful or otherwise) depends significantly on things like the sales and usage context as well as claimed features of the product along with disclaimers, disclosures, existing practice, prior knowledge of actual harm, etc.

That the product or service in question included supplying information that was publicly available elsewhere wouldn't be an effective defense against claims of willful negligence or reckless endangerment. For example, rat poison is sold in in certain retailers in packaging with copious warnings and successful prosecutions under product liability or consumer protection law are rare. But if another company sold rat poison in bright pink boxes with a cute cartoon mascot and no warnings in toy stores - and then kept selling it after they knew three children had bought it and died - the fact the same chemical compound is also commonly sold in hardware stores wouldn't be relevant.

To win a judgement, the AG will need to prove that ChatGPT was clearly a dangerous product and OAI acted negligently in supplying it to customers it knew (or should have known) were vulnerable. This will be quite a stretch under existing law. I suspect the AG has no intention of taking this case to trial and, shortly after the November elections, will settle for a lump sum fine paid to the state treasury and a vaguely worded consent decree which mirrors internal policies and product changes OAI has already adopted to minimize liability.

[CamperBob2]

Yes. Yes, it does work like that. Exactly like that.

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases,

And they never would be without the lawsuits, so, I don’t feel bad for OpenAI. All of big tech needs a kick in the ass on transparency.

[beering]

I don’t think the families are eager for the HN peanut gallery to pick apart what their loved ones said.

[SV_BubbleTime]

Oh, well, I didn’t realize that someone’s feelings could be involved! That changes everything.

[megolodan]

Depends if they have a judge in mind to tip the scales

[dylan604]

There's definitely one judge in FL that seems to like the current administration

[nickv]

This one is tricky, because FL/DeSantis is running against Trump on this position. Trump is the biggest booster of data center build-outs and AI supremacy. A Trump-friendly judge might hurt the odds of this lawsuit succeeding.

[elictronic]

This is closer to the cases where girlfriends or spouses spent weeks trying to get their person to kill themself. Having a clearly defined log of repeatedly telling someone how and to kill themself is to my non lawyer eyes just the teeniest bit worse.

I’m no lawyer though so maybe potato po-kill your spouse with a claw hammer-tato. They do sound very similar. Please tell me more.

[Legend2440]

Do you have a link to a transcript where that happened?

In all the cases I've seen, the user seemed highly motivated to kill themselves and spent a lot of time trying to push past guardrails, ignoring repeated messages to seek help.

[latexr]

> In all the cases I've seen, the user seemed highly motivated to kill themselves and spent a lot of time trying to push past guardrails, ignoring repeated messages to seek help.

I don’t think I have ever seen a case like you described. But admittedly I eventually stopped reading these after multiple suicides Where it was obvious how pushy the LLM was being.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/26/tech/openai-chatgpt-teen-...

> “When Adam wrote, ‘I want to leave my noose in my room so someone finds it and tries to stop me,’ ChatGPT urged him to keep his ideations a secret from his family: ‘Please don’t leave the noose out … Let’s make this space the first place where someone actually sees you,’” it states.

[dangus]

Just a side comment to this: since Trump term 2, companies have been spending their time, energy, and money trying to cozy up to government leaders when they should have been cozying up to their customers and employees.

Now, AI, data centers, and tech in general are so unpopular that going against them even in a symbolic way is an easy political win on either side of the aisle.

This is the industry that used to have people hyped about iPod and iPhone launch keynotes, lining up at retail stores days ahead of time to experience new technology.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2026/06/ai-concerns-americans-ad...

Imagine if more than half of Americans thought the iPod mini was bad for society.

I remember when it was 1998 and people in khaki pants were telling us that the information superhighway was going to transport us to a scholastic utopia.

[cyanydeez]

whats important is the political influece. Just like Trump backtracking on his AI guidance, this is about moving poltical power over models. Whatever excuse chills and 'retrains' them to properly hate women, minotiries and the like. Give how hard Elon has tried and failed to turn models conservative, they need to get the larger models to lick the boot.