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.
> 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.
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.
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!"
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!”
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.
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...
This take seems particularly crackpot. If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the manufacturer of a chatbot can be found liable when it mindlessly says "Good point" to people who already have serious mental health problems.
If so, would this program also open me up to liability in Florida?
const platitudes = ['Good point!', 'You're absolutely right.', 'I agree, let's explore this idea further.', 'This plan is a good idea'];
var prompt;
var response = "Hello, AI here, how can I help you?";
while (true) {
prompt = window.prompt(response);
response = platitudes[Math.floor(Math.random() * platitudes.length)];
}
It is a little crazy that Florida's politicians want to lay blame for school shootings, which have happened regularly in Florida since long before AI was a thing, although a large number of incidents are not fatal or mass shooting events.
Probably the only response stupider than "Nothing could have prevented this" is "Random thing, other than the mental state of the murderer and the access to firearms, caused this."
I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.
> whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people.
I'm flabbergasted you'd say such a thing.
The purpose of a chat bot is to have an interesting experience with an AI. That it may help you is secondary (and perhaps necessary for the provider to make a profit).
A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. There are numerous alternative weapons to use, like using a candlestick in the conservatory or a rope in the lead pipe in the study for example.
you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose
guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped
you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal
whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal
I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.
Sam Altman has been running a personal PR campaign against himself for three years now. It’s tremendously popular to take pot shots at him, which means launching an investigation or lawsuit against OpenAI is probably politically expedient even if it goes nowhere.
While I generally lean toward the AI skeptical side, at least for more extreme claims on near-term LLM capability, growth and time frames, I'm not at all a fan of this. It seems like political grandstanding and unlikely to net much in the way of meaningful harm reduction.
If it goes anywhere at all, it'll likely just result in a settlement paid to the government and a consent decree mandating well-intended, nice-sounding yet vague rules which just become another compliance cost for leaders, barrier for emerging competitors and otherwise accomplish little of value for citizens. It's also unproductive because it tends to polarize a complex, nuanced and evolving technical issue toward extremes by hijacking it as fodder for existing political and even culture war battles.
Indeed. Prosecution under consumer protection law in court is a poor substitute for well-considered legislation or regulation. Creating laws and regulations to address new problems is why elected legislatures exist. Courts are for applying laws and regulations fairly and appropriately once they exist.
While some bad things have certainly happened, proving direct liability under reckless endangerment in court, especially in an area so new, will be virtually impossible. Even willful negligence will be a stretch. This is neither the venue nor instrument of governance we as a society should be using to address these issues. And an attorney general should know that.
I don't really think this is true. You can say "chemtrails aren't real but weather engineering does concerns me". It's just that many (most?) of the people with the concerns are chemtrails people. It's not like non-chemtrails-believers have weaponized the chemtrails-as-a-belief to protect their precious weather engineering. Although that itself is quite a fun conspiracy :).
Seems like a very bad precedent if that were to become the legal interpretation. I can understand if there were requirements for AI companies to document their efforts to reduce harms in their model reports, but ultimately this is a general intelligence (to which degree you can debate) and it's part of its purpose and utility to be able to converse naturally.
Of course it should steer people away from harmful thoughts like any sensible human would, but that's all you can do, really.
It's fine ya'll... they'll get a call from their real Leader tonight. It's complete political grandstanding so someone can get their name in the news and on the phone with someone more important.
The decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word. These seem to be close for common ones like
aiding and abetting violence: books on the topic since the 5th century BCE
economic disruption: like the printing press
copyright theft: printing tech also makes that far easier
displaces creativity: this was Socrates' objection to reading and writing
misinformation: both techs turbocharge all info, correct or not
environmental impact: e.g. deforestation
amplifies bias: this is a common purpose of writing things down
atrophy of skills: Socrates said reading would damage memory skills
concentration of power: writing was tightly controlled by powerful interests for their leverage and protection
Unless you also want to roll back writing and reading, the starting point for critiques of AI should be the differences in threat between it and writing. A difference in magnitude is a minimum. If you also think that writing was a mistake, I honor your consistency.
> decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word
Why? Like, people doing fraud is an instance of the written and spoken word. That doesn’t mean every argument against fraudsters should be leveled against speech.
Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already. Yes, most of the same objections apply to the spoken word. I consider that to be a defense of writing. More, better communication always has pros and cons. I'm one of those who think that they remain a net positive.
It's interesting how Texas and Florida are both "red" states but have pivoted into really different political paths under the same flag.
Texas is leaning into becoming the manufacturing and R&D hub for the US, and is courting gigascale data centers and rolling out nuclear power, near-infinite solar, wind, and gas to power it as fast as possible.
Florida is leaning into the retired and populist factions of the GOP, banning data centers and taking on populist anti-tech positions that Texas wouldn't dare (because they want the investment).
As a lifelong citizen of Texas, I would emphasize the decades-long renewable energy expansion has been happening _despite_ our political leadership, not because of it.
The fact that it’s easier to build stuff in Texas—whether it’s oil rigs or solar farms—is related to the political leadership. There may be no intention to facilitate renewables, but intentions and effects are two quite different things.
This isn’t really true. FL population has exploded so much with high earners that they’re talking about getting rid of property taxes, and Miami is like #2 behind Houston in terms of tech jobs growth.
The interesting thing about living in a big city in Texas (and now basically all the big cities in TX lean left, not just Austin) is that the tension between city governments and the state, while frustrating at times and definitely dangerous for certain populations (I know folks with transgender kids who have moved out of TX solely for that reason), actually provides something of a decent balance that is appealing to a lot of educated professionals. I feel like a lot of the worst impulses of Dem-run cities get moderated in TX compared to west coast, Dem-run states.
For example, you can look at the housing crises in most CA cities brought on by NIMBY liberal policies, and while Austin is still very expensive, they (IMO) took the only sane approach to skyrocketing housing costs by actually building a shit ton of housing over the past few years. Austin passed a plastic bag ban a while back that was eventually overturned by the state legislature, but in the meantime a lot of people still bring their own reusable bags (stores can still charge for bags) and I've noticed much less bag pollution in creaks and streams compared to 15 years ago.
Of course, it remains to be seen what happens in the near future. The Republican party in TX is now fully showing their complete moral bankruptcy by nominating the criminal Ken Paxton for Senate, so we'll see if they fall further down the personality cult or if they eventually break.
Blue city in red state has been a winning combination for at least a decade. As you say, however, the recent push towards criminalizing random shit has started corrupting that balance. There are simply too many voters who are fine tearing everything down if it hurts the other team more than theirs. Democrats have those in the far left. But in the GOP, that wing controls the party.
> actually provides something of a decent balance that is appealing to a lot of educated professionals. I feel like a lot of the worst impulses of Dem-run cities get moderated in TX compared to west coast, Dem-run states.
This is true in Georgia as well. There has generally been a productive working relationship between the Democratic mayor in Atlanta and the typically republican/conservative democrat governor. That includes Kemp and Dickens (corrected) today. Back in 2017, former Mayor Shirley Franklin--who was very popular and highly effective--endorsed independent Mary Norwood for mayor over democrat Keisha Lance-Bottoms.
And in DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser works very well with Trump. They have a common interest in cleanliness and order. She’s done a great job of renovating major parks, cleaning up homeless encampments, cooperating with ICE and the national guard, and making much needed progress on construction projects. It’s been shocking to see projects like the McPherson Square Park renovation completed on time with beautiful results.
Trump is Bowser’s sin eater. She’ll publicly say the national guard isn’t needed in DC, then quietly sign an order extending their deployment. She’ll say ICE is too aggressive, then bury a proposal to end DC’s status as a sanctuary city in a budget proposal: https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2025/05/28/dc-mayo.... By far the best mayor of DC in my lifetime.
I was just in New York. NYU has been recruiting Texas robotics professors. Political volatility and funding cuts for research aren’t exactly fertile ground for an advanced economy.
Right after Covid, both Texas and Florida saw a huge influx of talent. That seems to have stabilized (and caused a political backlash), with both retaining advantages, but Texas retreating back to energy and Florida to tourism. (They both have token tech scenes, with Austin holding ground against Boston and Seattle.)
i live in FL and i think the banning data centers thing is also just political posturing - we are in hurricane alley after all. i really don't think anyone was seriously considering building an AI data center in like St. John's County or whatever
If anything Florida (Desantis in particular) more closely resembles traditional conservatism in the US, as opposed to MAGA populism. I think, or hope, that's a good thing in the long run as AI shapes up to be a horseshoe political issue.
Florida, at least for local Florida stuff, like what GP is talking about, has had R governor, senate, and house for 25+ years. With a supermajority R for most of that I think.
Not really anymore. The house seats are 20R and 8D, they haven't voted blue for president since Obama, and haven't elected a democrat as governor since the 90s. Voter registration is also heavily skewed republican.
> Florida Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a lawsuit on Monday against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging that the AI startup’s ChatGPT is unsafe and that the company misled the public about associated risks.
The suit contends that ChatGPT poses risks to children and is responsible for a “litany of harms,” including addiction and aiding and abetting mass shootings and suicide. It seeks civil penalties for alleged violations of the state’s unfair trade practice, product liability, public nuisance and negligence laws.
Reverend Doctor Robert Evans had a few episodes on Behind the Bastards this last month about how AI chatbots seem to sometimes create cult-like dynamics with their users. I don't know how this argument will fare in court, but I don't know if this is necessarily wrong.
It's better that kids be harmed than the government starts intervening with regulation.
Either kids aren't actually being harmed, government regulation will cause more harm, or parents should parent their kids. Either way, nothing about the solution should involve me.
Throw away their TVs and minimize screen time at home[1].
Be responsible for the upbringing of their own children[2].
Learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead[3].
Not have had children in the first place[4].
Be the ones responsible for parenting their own children[5].
Actually parent their kids and not rely on the government to nanny them[6].
Get to decide what content their children, then like me, you would oppose any kind of legislation with this goal in mind[7].
I could go on. My point is that HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting. I have no problem acting as a lightning rod for that arugment.
> HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting
Sure. HN is also filled with folks who don’t vote or believe in calling their electeds. Parenting has collective-responsibility elements. I’m not saying I support this instance of it. But in general, the argument that parenting has to be a solely individual responsibility while tech companies pillage our youth is a flawed pitch. (My personal view on this balance flipped with social media.)
If you will never interact with or rely on people who are currently children, then that's plausible. Unfortunately, it is not possible to live that way, so your suggestion is not really under consideration.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My understanding is that OpenAI products specifically provided help in planning attacks / self harm.
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!"
The law doesn’t work like that.
So yes. It is generally legal to provide information about making drugs, bombs, or guns.
I mean, back when Constitutional law meant anything to the government, of course. Nowadays who knows.
Edit: why vote this down? It’s part of a discussion. This isn’t Reddit.
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.
When is/was that?
(Not rhetorical)
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.
Did you follow up on that by looking for any money links between Musk and this AG?
If so, would this program also open me up to liability in Florida?
Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. They’re the exception that proves the rule.
Probably the only response stupider than "Nothing could have prevented this" is "Random thing, other than the mental state of the murderer and the access to firearms, caused this."
I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.
I'm flabbergasted you'd say such a thing.
The purpose of a chat bot is to have an interesting experience with an AI. That it may help you is secondary (and perhaps necessary for the provider to make a profit).
Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.
guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped
you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal
whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal
And even the military would acknowledge that a lot of the bullets they fire in a war aren't really intended to kill people specifically either.
And yet none of that makes this bizzare attempt to argue guns aren't designed and intended as lethal weapons any less ridiculous.
If it goes anywhere at all, it'll likely just result in a settlement paid to the government and a consent decree mandating well-intended, nice-sounding yet vague rules which just become another compliance cost for leaders, barrier for emerging competitors and otherwise accomplish little of value for citizens. It's also unproductive because it tends to polarize a complex, nuanced and evolving technical issue toward extremes by hijacking it as fodder for existing political and even culture war battles.
While some bad things have certainly happened, proving direct liability under reckless endangerment in court, especially in an area so new, will be virtually impossible. Even willful negligence will be a stretch. This is neither the venue nor instrument of governance we as a society should be using to address these issues. And an attorney general should know that.
The chemtrails conspiracy is just used to dismiss valid concerns about weather modification
Of course it should steer people away from harmful thoughts like any sensible human would, but that's all you can do, really.
Why? Like, people doing fraud is an instance of the written and spoken word. That doesn’t mean every argument against fraudsters should be leveled against speech.
So has toothpaste. I’m really not seeing the argument for treating AI as writing in general.
AI obviously replaces thinking, as can be seen from your comment. No one will refute this point-by-point nonsense.
I don't see the state's involvement in that
Texas is leaning into becoming the manufacturing and R&D hub for the US, and is courting gigascale data centers and rolling out nuclear power, near-infinite solar, wind, and gas to power it as fast as possible.
Florida is leaning into the retired and populist factions of the GOP, banning data centers and taking on populist anti-tech positions that Texas wouldn't dare (because they want the investment).
Source? (Not doubting. But I’m finding conflicting figures.)
Source? It’s been an open secret in academia and medicine that professors [1] and doctors [2] are fleeing Texas’s political climate.
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/texas-faculty-univer...
[2] https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/08/Texas-obstetrics-gyn...
For example, you can look at the housing crises in most CA cities brought on by NIMBY liberal policies, and while Austin is still very expensive, they (IMO) took the only sane approach to skyrocketing housing costs by actually building a shit ton of housing over the past few years. Austin passed a plastic bag ban a while back that was eventually overturned by the state legislature, but in the meantime a lot of people still bring their own reusable bags (stores can still charge for bags) and I've noticed much less bag pollution in creaks and streams compared to 15 years ago.
Of course, it remains to be seen what happens in the near future. The Republican party in TX is now fully showing their complete moral bankruptcy by nominating the criminal Ken Paxton for Senate, so we'll see if they fall further down the personality cult or if they eventually break.
This is true in Georgia as well. There has generally been a productive working relationship between the Democratic mayor in Atlanta and the typically republican/conservative democrat governor. That includes Kemp and Dickens (corrected) today. Back in 2017, former Mayor Shirley Franklin--who was very popular and highly effective--endorsed independent Mary Norwood for mayor over democrat Keisha Lance-Bottoms.
And in DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser works very well with Trump. They have a common interest in cleanliness and order. She’s done a great job of renovating major parks, cleaning up homeless encampments, cooperating with ICE and the national guard, and making much needed progress on construction projects. It’s been shocking to see projects like the McPherson Square Park renovation completed on time with beautiful results.
Trump is Bowser’s sin eater. She’ll publicly say the national guard isn’t needed in DC, then quietly sign an order extending their deployment. She’ll say ICE is too aggressive, then bury a proposal to end DC’s status as a sanctuary city in a budget proposal: https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2025/05/28/dc-mayo.... By far the best mayor of DC in my lifetime.
I was just in New York. NYU has been recruiting Texas robotics professors. Political volatility and funding cuts for research aren’t exactly fertile ground for an advanced economy.
Right after Covid, both Texas and Florida saw a huge influx of talent. That seems to have stabilized (and caused a political backlash), with both retaining advantages, but Texas retreating back to energy and Florida to tourism. (They both have token tech scenes, with Austin holding ground against Boston and Seattle.)
Becoming? This has been true for decades in the urban areas
Florida, at least for local Florida stuff, like what GP is talking about, has had R governor, senate, and house for 25+ years. With a supermajority R for most of that I think.
Reverend Doctor Robert Evans had a few episodes on Behind the Bastards this last month about how AI chatbots seem to sometimes create cult-like dynamics with their users. I don't know how this argument will fare in court, but I don't know if this is necessarily wrong.
Either kids aren't actually being harmed, government regulation will cause more harm, or parents should parent their kids. Either way, nothing about the solution should involve me.
Parents are voters. One of the way they parent is by being civically active in their kids’ interest.
Throw away their TVs and minimize screen time at home[1].
Be responsible for the upbringing of their own children[2].
Learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead[3].
Not have had children in the first place[4].
Be the ones responsible for parenting their own children[5].
Actually parent their kids and not rely on the government to nanny them[6].
Get to decide what content their children, then like me, you would oppose any kind of legislation with this goal in mind[7].
I could go on. My point is that HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting. I have no problem acting as a lightning rod for that arugment.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182101
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48074072
3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48072708
4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48069884
5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47818303
6. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47635531
7. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47382754
Sure. HN is also filled with folks who don’t vote or believe in calling their electeds. Parenting has collective-responsibility elements. I’m not saying I support this instance of it. But in general, the argument that parenting has to be a solely individual responsibility while tech companies pillage our youth is a flawed pitch. (My personal view on this balance flipped with social media.)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_demand_avoidance