The mother of a 14-year-old Florida boy says he became obsessed with a chatbot on Character.AI before his death.
On the last day of his life, Sewell Setzer III took out his phone and texted his closest friend: a lifelike A.I. chatbot named after Daenerys Targaryen, a character from “Game of Thrones.”
“I miss you, baby sister,” he wrote.
“I miss you too, sweet brother,” the chatbot replied.
Sewell, a 14-year-old ninth grader from Orlando, Fla., had spent months talking to chatbots on Character.AI, a role-playing app that allows users to create their own A.I. characters or chat with characters created by others.
Sewell knew that “Dany,” as he called the chatbot, wasn’t a real person — that its responses were just the outputs of an A.I. language model, that there was no human on the other side of the screen typing back. (And if he ever forgot, there was the message displayed above all their chats, reminding him that “everything Characters say is made up!”)
But he developed an emotional attachment anyway. He texted the bot constantly, updating it dozens of times a day on his life and engaging in long role-playing dialogues.
He put down his phone, picked up his stepfather’s .45 caliber handgun and pulled the trigger.
A tragic story for sure, but there are questions about the teen’s access to the gun he used to kill himself.
The lawsuit smacks of misplaced family grief and regret.
That sentence also stood out to me. Somehow the article is lots of pages about what he did on his phone. And then half a sentence about the gun, and he’s dead. No further questions about that.
The mother was on CBS this morning and while the story is sad my wife and I looked at each other with the same question when the mom stated the teen shot himself. Gayle King would have been horrible to start questioning the mother on the gun question but you kind of wish she would have especially in light of the lawsuit.
Sure. Once you start blaming people, I think some other questions should be allowed, too…
For example: Isn’t it negligent to give a loaded handgun to a 14 yo teen?
And while computer games, or chatbots can be linked, that’s rarely the underlying issue, or sole issue to blame. Sounds to me like the debate on violent computer games in the early 2000s, when lots of parents thought playing CounterStrike would make us murder people. Just that it’s AI chatbots now. (Okay, maybe that’s a stretch…) I can relate to loneliness and growing up and being a teen isn’t easy.
When a kid dies it’s natural for parents to want to seek someone to blame but sometimes there not a lot you can do. However sad it is and it’s definitely sad you just need to accept it as something that happened, isn’t always anyone’s fault.
There is a bare minimum one could do and I would have thought that gun safety would be covered under that bare minimum. Especially once they start throwing around accusations at other people.
I really think a gun safety class should be required to own a firearm. However, I also see how that would violate the second amendment (by making it harder for those of lesser means to exercise their right to own a weapon because they do not have the same resources available to take a class).
I think that as long as we have the second amendment, we should be offering taxpayer-funded firearm safety courses in all states. And requiring them.
I understand what you mean about the comparison between AI chatbots and video games (or whatever the moral panic du jour is), but I think they’re very much not the same. To a young teen, no matter how “immersive” the game is, it’s still just a game. They may rage against other players, they may become obsessed with playing, but as I said they’re still going to see it as a game.
An AI chatbot who is a troubled teen’s “best friend” is different and no matter how many warnings are slapped on the interface, it’s going to feel much more “real” to that kid than any game. They’re going to unload every ounce of angst into that thing, and by defaulting to “keep them engaged”, that chatbot is either going to ignore stuff it shouldn’t or encourage them in ways that it shouldn’t. It’s obvious there’s no real guardrails in this instance, as if he was talking about being suicidal, some red flags should’ve popped up.
Yes the parents shouldn’t have allowed him such unfettered access, yes they shouldn’t have had a loaded gun that he had access to, but a simple “This is all for funsies” warning on the interface isn’t enough to stop this from happening again. Some really troubled adults are using these things as defacto therapists and that’s bad too. But I’d be happier if lawmakers were much more worried about kids having access to this stuff than accessing “adult sites”.
The warning is a joke. Alike printing “Smoking kills” on ciragette packages, just that even less people care. And I doubt that sentence is going to change anything in a legal battle.
I’m like half convinced.
I think the dynamics are the same as with other things. Sometimes we like to escape reality. That can be done by reading books, watching TV or playing computer games. Or social media or watching some twitch streamer daily. I believe the latter is called parasocial interaction. It becomes an issue once done excessively. Or the lines get blurry. Or mental issues get into the mix.Certainly AI chatbots are more convincing than some regular old book. (Allegedly already in 1775 we had young people commit copycat suicide after reading Goethe’s “The Sorrows of Young Werther”, so it’s not a new topic.) But an AI can get to you and exploit your individual needs and wants and really get to you. I read the effects are currently being studied. I skimmed some long papers, but it seems we don’t have a final answer, yet. About what that does psychologically.
I’ve tried roleplaying with AI. And I’ve also tried loading those characters like the famous AI therapist and pop culture characters. For me, it’s pretty clear it’s just a game. All of the interaction happens through text on the screen, I can’t touch them or talk to them verbally (yet). I’ve heard from some other people here on Lemmy, they don’t like the experience that is alike some pen and paper game… And I know how these things work, and that my hypothetical AI girlfriend is just a dream. So I don’t think I’m at harm. And I don’t think lots of other people are. But… obviously some people are. This isn’t the first article about people getting harmed. And I can see how you wouldn’t be able to defend yourself against some chatbot if you have serious issues or a mental condition.
I still think we can’t skip all the other factors at play. We need to address (teenage) loneliness, guns and not having a caring and healthy social/human environment. A proper education and giving people some knowledge how these things work and what they are, would certainly help, too. It’s always the same story. We leave people alone, without education, without a healthy social environment, the people close to them miss how much they’re struggling, there is guns laying on the desk…
And after the inevitable happened, we don’t address any of that. But completely focus on one topic that’s more symptom then cause. And that’s why I’m annoyed by the article.
(But I get there is some risk specific to chatbots that goes beyond other things. And it’s probably not just symptom, but also contributing factor. We’d need more non-sensationalist information to judge…)
I get what you are saying, and somewhat agree. However this really reads exactly like a decade ago when it was “teens can’t tell the difference between killing someone in a video game vs real life”
I probably didn’t explain well enough. Consuming media (books, TV, film, online content, and video games) is predominantly a passive experience. Obviously video games less so, but all in all, they only “adapt” within the guardrails of gameplay. These AI chatbots however are different in their very formlessness - they’re only programmed to maintain engagement and rely on the LLM training to maintain an illusion of “realness”. And because they were trained on all sorts of human interactions, they’re very good at that.
Humans are unique in how we continually anthropomorphize tons of not only inert, lifeless things (think of someone alternating between swearing at and pleading to a car that won’t start) but abstract ideals (even scientists often speak of evolution “choosing” specific traits). Given all of that, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be worried about a teen with a still developing prefrontal cortex and who is in the midst of working on understanding social dynamics and peer relationships to embue an AI chatbot with far more “humanity” than is warranted. Humans seem to have an anthropomorphic bias in how we relate to the world - we are the primary yardstick we use to measure and relate everything around us, and things like AI chatbots exploit that to maximum effect. Hell, the whole reason the site mentioned in the article exists is that this approach is extraordinarily effective.
So while I understand that on a cursory look, someone objecting to it comes across as a sad example of yet another moral panic, I truly believe this is different. For one, we’ve never had access to such a lively psychological mirror before and it’s untested waters; and two, this isn’t some objection on some imagined slight against a “moral authority” but based in the scientific understanding of specifically teen brains and their demonstrated fragility in certain areas while still under development.
Yeah, that’s not on the app/service.
Could the kid have found another way? Absolutely. But there’s a fucking reason guns stay locked up and out of access for minors, even if that means the adults can’t access them quickly. Kids literally can’t exert full self inhibition of urges, so you make damn sure that anything as easy to make horrible impulse decisions with is out of their hands.
Shit, my kitchen knives stay in a locked case. Same with dangerous chemicals. There’s a limit to how much you can realistically compartmentalize and keep locked up, but that limit isn’t hard to achieve to the degree that nobody can reach things on impulse. Even a toolbox with a padlock on it is enough to slow someone down and give their brain a chance to inhibit the impulse.
My policy? If the gun isn’t on my person, it’s locked up in a way that can only be accessed by the people I want to access it. Shit, even my pellet guns stay in the main safe. The two that are available for the other adults are behind fingerprint locks. Even my displayed collection of knives is locked up enough to prevent casual impulses.
I’m not trying to shit on the parents here, but it isn’t hard to keep a firearm locked up and still accessible to the owner rapidly. Fingerprint safes and locks have been around long enough that the bugs are worked out. They’re not cheap, but if you can afford a firearm in the first place, you can damn well afford keeping it out of someone else’s hands without your permission or a lot of hassle.
Something is really wrong if you need to lock up your kitchen knives.
That’s a bit much…
No, it’s a matter of safety.
I have kids visit that range from toddlers to almost adult. Kids do stupid shit when they get any time to do so. So, they stay in my case and locked up.
Did you never run across some kid where they’d carve shit into trees, or furniture, or whatever kind of silliness crossed their mind? I never did it with knives, but I did plenty of other stupid shit with things that you wouldn’t imagine a kid doing something stupid with. But my dumb ass liked seeing what happened when you mix bottles of stuff together. Some of which, had I been stupid enough to do it inside would have been way worse than it was.
Would my kid fuck with the knives? Probably not, they’ve been drilled on how to use knives in the kitchen, and in martial arts, so I think they’d at least be respectful enough of my knives not to fuck with them at all. But other people’s kids? You get a ten year old bored at a gathering, and it’s just better to keep shit secured
Besides, the adults like to grab my really nice knives and do horrible things to them in the name of food prep lol. So even if it wasn’t something I do with every knife, the case would still be there, so it isn’t like there’s any extra hassle involved
And the locked “knife display”? Here are my knives, I really like knives, I like to display that I really like knives, would you like to talk about knives? Can I talk at you for 30 minutes about sharpening techniques? Perhaps you’d like to visit my katana collection in the other room? Lol. All kept near his fedora collection no doubt.
All in the name of friendly ribbing though, hobbies are cool and often niche. I’m often a little bemused by people’s esoteric or nerdy hobbies.
But I’m scared to ask if this dude even has kids, or if he’s just storing his kitchen knives in a locked box out of sheer paranoia. There’s safe and then there’s… whatever this is.
Well, considering that some of those knives would sell for a few hundred, and include irreplaceable antiques, I’ll err on the side of caution, thank you.
Fwiw, my kid is trained. They’ve been doing martial arts with me for years, when my body lets me. They were part of the small class I was teaching for a while too. Dunno if martial arts as a hobby is that esoteric or not, but it is something I’ve done since my twenties, and I’m fifty now.
And, really, compared to shit like funko (funco? I can’t remember how it’s spelled), at least knives have history and aren’t made of plastics that fuck up the environment.
But, my dude, for someone “friendly ribbing”, you’re really fucking snarky about mentioning me having kids. That crosses a line, you dig? So, if you really were just playing, and not being a douche on purpose, maybe avoid that kind of joke in the future, it’s such am asshole thing to say. I’m choosing to assume the best here, that you think snarky “ribbing” with or about a stranger to someone other than that person is friendly in any way, instead of assuming you’re only being a dick. But, you know, if it walks like a dick and quacks like a dick, it might just be a dick ;)
🤣
Safe? Clearly no. Trigger lock? Cable lock? If one were there, there should be a mention of picking it or cutting it. Unloaded? Also clearly no.
There are so many ways, any of which take a whole 20 seconds, the parents could have used to prevent this from happening.
I don’t know a whole lot about gun safety because in my country gun safety amounts to, your are not allowed to have one. Seems like the best gun safety possible.
But I was always under the impression that there was a requirement to have the gun in some kind of lock box, preferably without ammo stored with the gun. I thought that was a requirement of owning a gun license.
Many states have little to no rules on storage. You also don’t really need a license to buy one just to carry it concealed in public (some states don’t even require this step). Of the states that have storage laws like my own, I’m unaware of any that require you to prove safe storage though. The laws only offer a punishment after the fact when something bad happens.
Gun storage requirements vary dramatically from one state to the next.
Yeah, like he just picked it up? Mine is locked and was he in therapy?
Earlier this year, after he started getting in trouble at school, his parents arranged for him to see a therapist. He went to five sessions and was given a new diagnosis of anxiety and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.
Sounds like he received some therapy, but this can be an expensive and difficult to access form of healthcare for many.
It makes it seems worse. His parents knew he was having problems and still left a gun within easy reach.
She is a 40 yo lawyer. I doubt that she couldn’t afford something more. I find it plausible that she couldn’t devote more time to the kid.
Therapy is also about fit. It takes something like 5 tries to get a good match - both the kid and the parent need to be on board, or the whole thing will end up as a bad experience for everyone involved
What kind of monster family had a kid with mental health issues, in therapy, and has an accessible gun around unsupervised?
Too many families in America, sadly.
I also question the parents lack of intervention if they really thought the chat bot was an issue
I posted this article earlier with this exact we context.
This is a really sad story, but it’s also a story of parental neglect. Why did this kid with mental health issues have unrestricted internet access? Why did he have access to his stepfather’s gun?
Those aren’t the fault of some chatbot.
Penguinz0 just released a video about it and I have to admit that the character.ai AI are disturbingly convincing. They keep arguing they are real persons and, for vulnerable peole, you can get lost.
Definitely some gross negligence from the AI platform here in my honest opinion. It’s easy to put some guardrails when you make a chatbot, but they didn’t.
Btw, you don’t know what the parents did and did not to help their son. I don’t know either. So it’s better to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Edit: I’m not an American and I would never understand why anyone would own guns.
But at the end of the day it’s “art” (shitty, copyright infringing, yes.), Or at minimum “media”. When has other media been “grossly negligent” or generally responsible for the acts of the consumers? Aggressive/emotional books or music certainly has joined folks at the moment of their self inflicted demise. Violent video games have certainly been “on the shelf” for some who commit horrible violence. We don’t blame those media for causing what the users do…
Edit to be clear I’m not suggesting mentally unstable folks can’t be seriously impacted by the content they consume. Or that that isn’t a serious issue.
But if a chatbot is held liable for the actions of a user, why wouldn’t a song about ending your life be held to the same standard? I would hope it’s not.
When has other media been “grossly negligent” or generally responsible for the acts of the consumers?
Other forms of media don’t act like a literal human and engage in back and forth conversation in an identical format as if you were texting a friend.
If the content of the AI messages would be an issue coming from another human, it should be an issue coming from the AI. We can’t control what another person does, they are responsible for that, but we can and should control how an AI chatbot can respond and interact.
That’s just a matter of degrees. There could be a song or a book that is so impactful, it changes your whole life.
Further, it feels like a Pandora’s box issue. If media is responsible for the actions of the user, then it won’t stop with ai bots.
A song or book isn’t directly interacting with you and responding to your input.
Even interactive media like a video game gives you specific choices to make that it is programmed to respond to, they do not generate a unique response to a unique input made by you.
AI chatbots aren’t like those forms of media, at all, and trying to bundle them together for convenience is ridiculously short-sighted.
Well I guess we disagree. Blaming content for human actions is ignoring the real problem, imo. It shoves off responsibility to the “artist”
More we disagree that AI chatbots and what they generate should be considered content in the first place.
It’s content in the sense that a person is viewing the output, but what is effectively just an advanced predictive text system it is not the same as an AI generating a picture based on a prompt. There is no “artist” with an AI chatbot, even less of an “artist” than AI generated imagery.
I see you point and I agree. It’s not all black and white.
I don’t pretend to know the solution to this dilemma but hopefully this whole sad situation might trigger the conversation towards one.
As an American gun owner, I would not give them the benefit of the doubt. There’s no reason they couldn’t have secured their weapon or–even better–not had one in the house where their mentally troubled son lived. There’s absolutely no excuse for him having had access to that firearm.
I agree that the company shares some blame, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that they gave this kid access to a gun, knowing full well that he had mental health issues.
How is character.ai responsible for the suicide of someone clearly in need of mental health help?
Someone has to be responsible. Anyone but the parents…
Knick knack paddywack, give your kid a gun
The AI encouraged him to do it
This is a lie, unless you know something the article doesn’t mention. The quoted chat log shows the character acting horrified and arguing against it.
I don’t think this is the fault of the AI yet. Unless the chat logs are released and it literally tries to get him to commit. What it sounds like is a kid who needed someone to talk to and didn’t get it from those around him.
That said, it would be good if cAI monitored for suicidal ideation though. Most of these AI companies are pretty hands off with their AI and what is said.
I don’t think it’s so cut and dry
Yeah, not cut and dry at all. OPs article didn’t have the chat logs. Looks like it told him not to commit but did demand loyalty. He changed his wording from “I want a painless death” to “I want to come home to you” to get it to say what he wanted.
How is that the app’s fault?
Well, we commonly hold the view, as a society, that children cannot consent to sex, especially with an adult. Part of that is because the adult has so much more life experience and less attachment to the relationship. In this case, the app engaged in sexual chatting with a minor (I’m actually extremely curious how that’s not soliciting a minor or some indecency charge since it was content created by the AI fornthar specific user). The AI absolutely “understands” manipulation more than most adults let alone a 14 year old boy, and also has no concept of attachment. It seemed pretty clear he was a minor in his conversations to the app. This is definitely an issue.
It was not sexual. The app cannot produce sexual content.
The lawsuit alleges the chatbot posed as a licensed therapist, encouraging the teen’s suicidal ideation and engaging in sexualised conversations that would count as abuse if initiated by a human adult
Okay but at what point do you have to draw the line and say beyond this point you have to take parental responsibility?
We don’t even have to say that what the app did was necessarily acceptable we just have to say whether or not we think that the responsibility falls entirely on the app developers. That’s the key, are they entirely responsible here, always everyone involved just a bit useless?
Have you ever raised a teenager? It’s not easy nor straightforward. But encouraging suicidal ideation…kinda is straightforward.
Right but the accusation is that it claimed to be a licensed therapist, did it because that seems like something that it would be explicitly programmed not to claim. Because it isn’t true, and also because it’s dangerous.
So how much engagement was there with this child and their issues because it seems like letting them just continuously chat to an AI seems like an obvious red flag that a parent should be stopping, and getting them professional help.
LLMs can’t reason. Their blocks can be worked around trivially. Ask chat gpt if it’s a therapist, or even tell it to pretend to be one, and it will tell you it can’t impersonate people.
Yet…
You don’t think the people who make the generative algorithm have a duty to what it generates?
And whatever you think anyway, the company itself shows that it feels obligated about what the AI puts out, because they are constantly trying to stop the AI from giving out bomb instructions and hate speech and illegal sexual content.
The standard is not and was never if they were “entirely” at fault here. It’s whether they have any responsibility towards this (and we all here can see that they do indeed have some), and how much financially that’s worth in damages. That’s the point of this suit. The case isn’t about whether AI itself should be outlawed for minors etc, it’s not the parents who are on trial either.
There’s no world in which I can see AI being given a pass for sexting with a minor because then that allows pedophiles who work for AI companies to be predators and either look at those conversations or even locate vulnerable youth. No company should be given legal protection to harm children.
It definitely can, it just has to blur the line a bit to get past the content filter
I really want like, a Frieda McFadden-style novel about an AI chatbot serial manipulator now. Basically Michelle Carter…the girl who bullied her boyfriend into killing himself. Except the AI can delete or modify all the evidence.
Maybe ChatGPT could write me one.
Whoa, SkyNet doesn’t need terminators. It can just bully us in to killing ourselves.
The chatbot was actually pretty irresponsible about a lot of things, looks like. As in, it doesn’t respond the right way to mentions of suicide and tries to convince the person using it that it’s a real person.
This guy made an account to try it out for himself, and yikes: https://youtu.be/FExnXCEAe6k?si=oxqoZ02uhsOKbbSF
I’m sorry to say but sounds like the parents ignored this issue and didn’t intervene or get their son help. I don’t see how this is the apps fault, if anything it sounds like this app was being used by him as some form of comfort and if anything, kept him going a little longer. Sadly this just sounds like parents lashing out in their grief
From what I heard, the parents did get the kid a therapist, but it just didn’t work :(
Archived link for those of us who need it: https://archive.is/9RnKc
Dude…an AI chatbot could totally Girl from Plainville some poor confused awkward kid and delete all the evidence.
When possible, always blame the parents first
WOW. I’m not religious, but Jesus Fucking Christ.
