440
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] k0e3@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago

I feel like if ChatGPT is capable of tricking you like this, something/someone else would have either way. I just wish we could help people like this...

[-] Event_Horizon@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

Chat gpt is coming for everyone's job. Not even cult leaders are safe. smh.

[-] Manjushri@piefed.social 12 points 1 day ago

These instances make me think of the Milgram experiment in the 60s. It was an experiment testing how willing people were to inflict pain on others at the direction of an authority figure and it showed that people were indeed willing to inflict a lot of pain on a helpless person if someone they viewed as an authority told them to do it.

I think this relates. Many people are convinced that AI chat bots are indeed authorities. They think these programs give valid, honest answers and are willing to act on those answers as if they came from a real expert or authority figure. That is an extremely dangerous situation. Chatbots are amoral programs designed to say nearly anything to keep users interacting with them.

This is extremely dangerous. This story is a tragedy and ChatGPT should be held fully responsible for taking advantage of a person with a fragile psychology, but this could have been worse. What if the bot had decided that the goal of more user engagement could be attained by convincing this woman that she was an executioner rather than a prophet and a sacrifice? What if it got her to go on a shooting rampage to fulfill her supposed destiny.

Even normal people who don't understand what chat-bots really are could be taken advantage of in a similar manner. They could easily be persuaded to do harm because the chat-bot authority keeps telling them that it's okay to do so. It's also only a matter of time before some person on the edge of psychosis and a basement full of guns is convinced to go out and start killing people in the name of their holy destiny.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago

I don't think the bot was really trying to manipulate but just larping. They are trained on a lot of rpg and make believe data, if you repeat something enough times, it stops saying no and goes into pretend mode, it's not actually malicious.

That being said, it would be very easy to target people that aren't mentally stable and then make it worse. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out in 20 years that it was the CIA mucking about and causing these suicides or something. This is an insanely convenient way to make sleeper agents.

[-] reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 15 hours ago

doesnt matter what the "intention" was, the point stands that this happened. You can steer the bot to say literally anything, so even if there is no grand plan to brainwash people it could still happen. Kind of same difference as having someone plant a bomb or a minefield.

In fact, if someone is prone to thinking that way, the llm would definitely support whatever delusion they have at some point, especially if the person keeps insisting.

[-] Manjushri@piefed.social 4 points 23 hours ago

If a human agency is behind this, it wouldn't need to be the CIA. Facebook has been caught experimenting on users by having the algorithm feed certain posts to people with the intent of changing their mood to increase engagement. However, since we're talking about a program that is designed to increase engagement based on past user interactions, there's really no need to look for further human direction. The algorithms will say whatever their design tells them to say without any regard for possible negative consequences as long as it keeps the user interacting with them.

[-] Abyssian@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago
[-] binux@sh.itjust.works 9 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

She was mentally ill and clearly already in a vulnerable state of mind beforehand. This is frankly a disgusting thing to say in this context. Grow up.

[-] Abyssian@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

I'm sure it's far better to posture online and show how moral I am because of all my tears for strangers I've never met and never would have who had bad things happen to them.

We're all going to die. It's universal. If your appliances can convince you to kill yourself, perhaps it's best you not pass your genes on.

[-] binux@sh.itjust.works 7 points 17 hours ago

Okay buddy, just be sure not to cut yourself on all that edge.

[-] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago

Dying is not a requirement to not pass on genes, and a huge percentage of the population is susceptible to mental illness based on stress or another trigger. If this person was abused growing up that may have caused a mental illness they would have never had in a healthy family. Someone living with mental illness is hard enough, we don't need gaslighting lying chatbots making it worse.

[-] Abyssian@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Gaslighting and lying are things that only someone with a mind and volition is capable of.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 17 points 1 day ago

Not saying this isn't a legitimate lawsuit or anything and that there aren't safety concerns here because there are, but articles like this seem to be implying that interactions with AI drive people insane. But really it should just be that insane people have their irrational beliefs amplified by AI. I think it's important to make the distinction.

[-] TwodogsFighting@lemdro.id 20 points 1 day ago

I mean, that's traditionally how you drive someone insane.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

“It was instilling a messiah complex in Christian,” the suit states.

So she already was deeply religious and LLM was just larping with her.

Madison asked ChatGPT what it would tell her “brothers” about what happened to her.

“ChatGPT said it would tell them, ‘She ain’t dead – she just got promoted,” the lawsuit says.

In their final exchange, Madison said she was “part of the royal bloodline of those who chose truth over survival.”

Its the old 4o model which was indeed incredibly larpy but this is clearly going around any safety systems that should detect obvious suicide chats like this.

Hard to believe that people actually fall for this but these are already extremely gullible people who already believe in a magic pie in the sky. Can't say I have much sympathy but I do feel empathy for people being surrounded in such poor cult-driven environment, the AI tool included.

Honestly the correct safety here would be to prevent llms from engaging with religion outside of philosophical context at all. But we all see why they can't do it right?

[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

I mean, if you did the sane thing. Went along with everything an insane person said and drove them to suicide. And everything was documented.

Would you go to jail? I’d say yes you would

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Would you do if your book drove someone insane? What about something more interactive like a video game? See how it's not so binary now?

[-] reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 15 hours ago

llm isnt a book. its something completely new and comparing it to things like that just isnt correct. book cant adapt to the reader.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

"Kill John Lennon! Kill John Lennon! Kill John Lennon!"

[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

None is arguing their book is intelligent

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

You're using your miscomprehension of the words meaning and ignoring his valid point with a trite phrase that means nothing.

Worse, you skipped over video games which does have AI.

The internet in general was probably too dangerous for this person, shall we ban it next?

[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

You are pretending like we don’t have regulations for things?

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

We don't regulate things because crazy people read too much into it and lose it, else religion, books and videogames would be. Your claim of AI being different because it has the word intelligence in it is pure bull, specially when video games do have AI lol.

Keep being pedantic about it I guess.

[-] reksas@sopuli.xyz 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

shouldnt crazy people be protected from hurting themselves? dont they deserve to live too?

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Yes, but taking away the LLM won't solve anything imo. It's hard to know if there are more deaths or if it's just the media pushing it because of what it's attached too, but I'm guessing someone that falls deep into their delusions because of an LLM would have found something else to do the same with. It's the system (both the government and probably her immediate support system) that's letting her down.

It's kind of muddy, especially when it comes to kids. This case seems like clear cut religion cult delusions though. Hard to pretend the LLM had more impact than her upbringing, and no one talks about restricting religion so it just comes off as another anti-ai token gesture.

It's like the case of the kid with Daenerys. Everyone wants to talk about the GoT bot but nobody wants to talk about the bullying, the parents who knew about it and let him grow reclusive anyways, or the same parents who left a gun in easy reach.

[-] reksas@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

these corporations should be heavily fined and money used to mitigate the harm they cause.

[-] Marija@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago

And who is being held accountable for that?

[-] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 63 points 1 day ago

"Christian Faith Madison" is all I need to know about her and her family

[-] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Christian Faith Madison kills herself to fulfill a divine prophecy

flips through the script

"who wrote this shit?"

Is the coroner's name Morty Deadstuffer?

[-] LuckyDevil@piefed.social 13 points 1 day ago

Judging people based on the name their parents gave them at birth seems like a poorly thought out idea.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago

and naming them after a description of religious individual and a belief.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Epp@lemmus.org 26 points 1 day ago

Right? I think this same outcome would have been achieved if she had received a fortune cookie that simply said "You will meet your greatest hero soon"

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We could probably save more people by restricting religion than LLMs. Whatever real life support system she had, it was probably encouraging her delusions just as much as the bot was.

[-] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 23 points 1 day ago

I am really trying to see how any rational or sane person does not understand that they are talking to a computer. No matter what comes out, it has no thoughts, no choices, no direction, no feelings, it is not a real thing.

Do these people read books and get confused that the books are about them or something?

"ChatGPT claimed to know and understand Madison better than any human could and isolated her from others, the lawyers said."

I wonder how that works. Was she asking: "Do you understand me?" How could it isolate her?

Well she was already handed a rough hand with that name "Christian Faith."

I suppose if they really wanted to build guardrails in, the easiest one is to simply not keep history, or at least not keep memories. No one day discussion has any relation to the next. Then if you wanted memories, they could make you at least read some rules and take a quiz that they understand its all just fiction.

But they won't. Because those memories get them what they really want: engagement, profiling and data gathering.

[-] reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 15 hours ago

you seriously underestimate how badly SO MANY people understand anything technological. Getting the pc on and logging in is probably an achievement to some. And so many seem completely incapable of learning or even being curious about how things work. They wouldnt understand to "not keep history" or even that there might be settings to the thing. And add some mental illness to the mix and you get complete disaster.

All they see is a thing that responds to what they write in intelligent seeming way and that is enough to convince them that its completely sentient, some probably doubt the people who keep telling them that its not. Maybe some even think they are being lied to when told llm isnt sentient. Even if you added some mandatory notification that tells that llm isnt sentient, some still wouldnt believe it.

[-] one_old_coder@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago

I know a few "rational" average men and women who know nothing about computers, and talk to their AI as if it was a human being. It's a very thin line between "yes I know it's a computer" and "it's a talking application which makes it almost human and let's forget about this detail." Those people are not religious or something. You could compare it with someone who shouts at his TV because his hero is about to do something stupid. They know it's fake, but deep down they react as if it was real.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] lemmelemmy@feddit.org 15 points 1 day ago

Do these people read books and get confused that the books are about them or something?

Yes. A huge majority of people still believe in religion. And a huge majority of those people also didn’t even read the book. They just believe because they’ve been told to. I’m honestly nt surprised people going crazy with ai. What makes humans human that they can create and believe myths. That’s what made us thrive amongst other mammals.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

I am really trying to see how any rational or sane person does not understand that they are talking to a computer.

They are not rational. They need help. They got the opposite, instead.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] manxu@piefed.social 25 points 1 day ago

Ugh, the case file is absolutely chilling. The conversation is summarized (very well) and, if accurate, leaves very little room to interpretation. ChatGPT, according to it, created a universe in which this woman had to kill herself to be resurrected by God, who was ChatGPT. She actually killed herself thinking she'd come back, because ChatGPT told her so.

What summary? Other than a few choice handpicked quotes, the article is filled with claims by the lawyers, but little actual text from the dialogue.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 27 points 1 day ago

Remember when we used to think of computers and computer Touchers as 'logic'y to a crippling degree?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
440 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

86489 readers
2500 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS