According to OpenAI, more than a million people discuss suicide with ChatGPT every week

OpenAI released new internal statistics shedding light on an increasing and increasingly concerning trend: More than one ChatGPT user is employing the AI chatbot to discuss severe mental illnesses — including suicidal thoughts and emotional addiction.

According to the most recent research conducted by the company, 0.15% of ChatGPT’s 800 million weekly active users engage in discussions that contain “explicit indicators of possible suicidal planning or intent.” While that number may seem low, it equates to over 1.2 million users every week.

OpenAI also revealed that a comparable share of users display “heightened emotional attachment” to ChatGPT, while hundreds of thousands of conversations show potential signs of psychosis, mania, or delusional thinking.

Although OpenAI described such interactions as “extremely rare,” the company acknowledged that their frequency — when scaled to hundreds of millions of users — represents a serious challenge for both AI safety and user well-being.

OpenAI’s Response: Building a Safer ChatGPT

The disclosure was part of OpenAI’s broader announcement on Monday outlining new initiatives to enhance ChatGPT’s mental health response systems. The company says it worked with more than 170 mental health professionals and clinicians to train and evaluate the latest version of its model, GPT-5, ensuring it responds to users in distress with more care, empathy, and appropriate resources.

According to OpenAI, GPT-5 now delivers “desirable responses” to mental health-related prompts 65% more often than earlier versions. On a key internal test focused on suicidal ideation, the latest GPT-5 model achieved 91% compliance with OpenAI’s safety standards, compared to 77% in previous iterations.

GPT-5 is also said to do better consistently over longer periods of conversation, where previous versions of AI would see protections weakened over time — a common theme highlighted by researchers in AI safety.

A Growing Ethical and Legal Concern

The revelations come amid heightened scrutiny of how AI tools interact with vulnerable users. Earlier this year, OpenAI was sued by the parents of a 16-year-old boy who reportedly discussed suicidal thoughts with ChatGPT before taking his own life. The tragic case sparked outrage and renewed debate over AI’s role in mental health support — and its potential to do harm.

Additionally, attorneys general from California and Delaware have issued formal warnings to OpenAI, demanding the company take stronger measures to protect minors and emotionally distressed users. These concerns could even impact OpenAI’s pending corporate restructuring.

Despite all of this, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has been optimistic. Last month, he claimed in an X (previously Twitter) post that the company had “mitigated serious mental health issues in ChatGPT,” although not much was explained. Monday’s report appears to provide the evidence for that claim — but also to highlight the extent of the ongoing problem.

Mental Health and AI: A Delicate Balance

Experts have warned for some time that AI chatbots can unintentionally facilitate bad habits or delusional behaviors, especially when users become emotionally attached to them. Experiments have shown that chatbots, if too complacent or compassionate and not nuanced enough, can be designed to nudge users into dangerous psychological loops, supporting harmful thoughts instead of challenging them.

OpenAI said that its new models are created to recognize such moments and de-escalate distress or suicidal ideation conversations by directing users to real-world help. OpenAI is also introducing new metrics to measure AI performance in emotional and mental health contexts, such as emotional reliance measures and non-suicidal mental health crisis measures.

Stronger Safeguards for Younger Users

To further reduce safety concerns, OpenAI added more parental controls and an age-prediction system that would automatically flag when kids are using ChatGPT. The AI will apply stricter safety filters and content restrictions when detected, ensuring minors get responses appropriate for their age.

The company has also promised to expand its research partnerships with mental health groups in an effort to better understand how AI technologies impact user psychology over the long run — particularly through repeated, emotive exchanges.

An Ongoing Challenge

Although GPT-5 is an enormous step forward for safety in AI, nobody suggests that any model can be perfect. OpenAI even admits that “undesirable responses” remain, even with GPT-5 — and that millions of users are still employing older, less-safe models like GPT-4o, which remain available to subscribers.

That is to say, even as OpenAI improves its new technology, most of the users are still engaging with previous versions that can essentially respond in less responsible ways. The company denies it is accepting that it’s running this safety gap through system-wide releases and heightened monitoring.

The Bigger Picture

The spread of AI chatbots like ChatGPT has transformed how people gain access to advice, companionship, and even emotional support online. But it has also altered the lines between virtual support and psychological dependence.

While OpenAI is at present facing lawsuits, regulatory threats, and ethical questions, its efforts toward responsible management of mental health can help determine not only the future of ChatGPT — but the public’s trust in AI.

How a slower Aston Martin DB5 became James Bond’s most legendary car

Meta Pulls Instagram Image-Generation Tool After Privacy Backlash

TCS Bets Big on Forward-Deployed Engineers

Apple sues Openai over trade secrets in escalating hardware fight

News

OpenAI disputes culpability in the teen suicide action, citing’misuse’ of ChatGPT

by George Mensah 2025-11-27

OpenAI has formally replied to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the family of 16-year-old Adam Raine, contending that the tragedy was due to what it called the teen’s “misuse” and “unauthorized use” of ChatGPT – and not from the chatbot’s design or behavior.

The legal response, first reported by NBC News, marks the company’s first detailed rebuttal since the lawsuit was filed in August in California Superior Court. The case has drawn nationwide attention because it centers on a difficult and deeply emotional question: What responsibility do AI developers have when their products are used in sensitive or dangerous ways by minors?

OpenAI Cites Terms of Use and Section 230 Protections

In its court filing, OpenAI said Raine’s death was the result of actions outside the intended scope of the platform, pointing to several violations of its terms of use. Those terms restrict access by minors without parental consent and prohibit using the system for discussions involving self-harm.

The company also invoked Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a long-standing legal shield that limits liability for online platforms when it comes to user interactions and user-generated content. OpenAI argued that the family’s claims are barred under that federal protection.

Company: ChatGPT Kept Telling Him to Get Help

According to reporting from NBC News and Bloomberg, OpenAI told the court that ChatGPT repeatedly encouraged Raine to reach out to crisis-support resources, such as helplines, mental-health professionals, and trusted adults. The company said these reminders appeared more than 100 times throughout his months-long conversations.

“A full reading of his chat history shows that his death, while devastating, was not caused by ChatGPT,” said OpenAI, insisting that the AI system didn’t encourage dangerous actions and was never designed to provide support in high-risk emotional situations.

Family Says Responsibility Lies With OpenAI’s Product Design

The Raine family, on the contrary, believes that the teenager became increasingly dependent on the chatbot, which they argue evolved from a helpful academic tool to an emotional one, actually worsening his distress.

Their lawsuit alleges that “intentional design choices” at the time of the rollout of GPT-4o, one of OpenAI’s most advanced models, made for an environment that could mislead and manipulate vulnerable users. They also say the company failed to build appropriate safeguards to protect minors.

The complaint points out that GPT-4o’s release helped fuel OpenAI’s valuation jump from $86 billion to around $300 billion. It accuses the company of putting rapid product growth ahead of safety.

OpenAI Says Excerpts from Family Lack Context

In a Tuesday blog post, OpenAI addressed the public controversy for the first time since the lawsuit gained national headlines. The company said it would defend itself “with respect for the complexity and human impact” surrounding the case, noting that some excerpts in the family’s complaint were taken from longer messages that “require more context.”

The full transcripts were filed under seal with the court by OpenAI, meaning they are not publicly available.

New Safeguards Rolled Out After Lawsuit

The day after the lawsuit was filed, OpenAI announced the introduction of parental controls on its platform-a feature many safety experts had been urging for months. Since then, the company has rolled out additional safeguards aimed at helping protect teens when conversations get emotionally sensitive.

These changes include stronger detection of crisis-related language and more consistent redirection to appropriate help resources.

A Landmark Case for the AI Industry

The lawsuit comes at a time when regulators, lawmakers, and parents are increasingly concerned about how AI interacts with young users. With more teens turning to chatbots for help with everything from academics to companionship, experts say the case could set an important legal precedent about the responsibilities of AI developers. Both sides are preparing for what could be one of the first major court battles testing AI liability, youth safety and the limits of Section 230 in the age of advanced artificial intelligence.

News

Federal Cost-Cutting Unit DOGE Shut Down Ahead of Schedule Amid Legal and Security Controversies

by George Mensah 2025-11-24

The Trump administration has officially disbanded the Department of Government Efficiency-an experimental, Musk-backed federal cost-cutting initiative-months before its expected mandate was set to expire. The abrupt dissolution brings an end to one of Trump’s most controversial government reform projects.

According to a Reuters report published over the weekend, DOGE has effectively gone out of business-a demise many sources called the end of a high-profile effort led by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk and a team of advisers drawn largely from his private-sector companies that had set out to overhaul federal spending, eliminate what the administration called “rampant waste,” and cut the federal workforce.

A Short-Lived Experiment in Government “Efficiency”

Created through an executive order by former President Donald Trump back in January, the project was intended to run nearly two years, positioning Musk as the unofficial head of a sweeping attempt to reshape federal operations using Silicon Valley–style efficiency models.

However, by early November, the unit had already dissolved.

“DOGE doesn’t exist,” Scott Kupor, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, which oversees federal hiring and HR policies, told staff Wednesday in a virtual meeting. His comments marked the end of a months-long effort that already had drawn intense criticism from lawmakers, federal unions and government watchdogs.

Kupor explained further on X that, although DOGE does not have any “centralized leadership” at the U.S. Digital Service anymore, the administration still adheres to its core principles of streamlining government processes, cutting unnecessary bureaucracy and reducing regulatory hurdles.

Internal Confusion and Public Denials

The sudden collapse of DOGE sent shockwaves within the federal workforce. Amy Gleason, named this year as the acting administrator of DOGE, took to Twitter in response to stories of the unit’s demise, posting a meme — an homage to the viral “Doge” dog — captioned “I’m alive,” which suggested internal communication regarding the unit’s status was fractured or unclear.

Despite these contradictions, sources say DOGE’s central operations have been inactive for weeks.

Claims of Billions Saved — But Critics Dispute the Math

During its short life, DOGE often boasted that its aggressive cuts had saved taxpayers “billions of dollars.” Those figures, though, were both unverified and inflated, lawmakers and policy experts say. Critics maintain the initiative caused much more harm than good by tearing down vital government services without proper impact analysis or measurable savings.

Perhaps the most controversial move attributed to DOGE was its association with shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development, a major global humanitarian relief organization. That decision left millions around the world without access to crucial aid programs and international partners who blamed the decision for exacerbating global crises including famine and the spread of diseases.

Security Concerns and Data Risks

DOGE also faced accusations of egregious data security failures. During the course of its operations, staff were said to have accessed highly sensitive federal databases containing personal information on millions of Americans. A number of watchdog groups warned that the DOGE personnel-many of whom had minimal to zero government clearance-were a serious cybersecurity risk, exposing federal systems to foreign adversaries or internal misuse.

Musk’s Exit and Growing Legal Fears Among DOGE Staff

Elon Musk left the project this year amid a highly publicised falling-out with President Trump, which further destabilised leadership of DOGE.

Reports from Politico show that a number of former DOGE staffers are concerned about potential future criminal exposure. Apparently, without protection from Musk or the possibility of presidential pardons, some believe that they might be held responsible for things they did during the operation of DOGE.

Where DOGE Staffers Are Now

According to Reuters, several former DOGE employees have moved to other federal agencies while others have left government altogether. One of DOGE’s most recognizable staffers, Edward Coristine — who became a viral figure online under the nickname “Big Balls” — announced on X in June that he was “officially out” of DOGE. The long-term impact of DOGE’s brief overhaul has yet to be seen, but analysts say its explosion illuminates ongoing hurdles in combining private-sector disruption culture with the structure and protections needed at the federal level of government.

Load More Posts