Comment by Legend2440
4 hours ago
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.
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
Don’t be fooled, they already 100% do that if you use any of these products.
> 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
Then, what are they even fighting about?
1 reply →
if they did, why draw attention?
> 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.
It's unclear to me that any government plan to rate media would pass first amendment scrutiny. Are there any official government rating regulations?
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.
This is performative. This is from the same AG who is suing the NFL over the Rooney Rule.
Coincidentally, Florida was the same state that barred and later disbarred Jack Thompson, the nutcase lawyer behind a lot of the video game litigation.
Back when Florida was still a normal state. It’s been crazy here for a while now.
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.
Depends if they have a judge in mind to tip the scales
There's definitely one judge in FL that seems to like the current administration
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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!"
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...
3 replies →
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.
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.
6 replies →
There are already published examples where there was very specific info and guidance provided.
2 replies →
> 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.
1 reply →
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.
6 replies →
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.
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.
[dead]
My first thought was that they were suing as a favor to Trump/Musk.
> first thought was that they were suing as a favor to Trump/Musk
Did you follow up on that by looking for any money links between Musk and this AG?