this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
285 points (99.0% liked)

News

29494 readers
4658 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The judge’s order will allow the wrongful death lawsuit to proceed, in what legal experts say is among the latest constitutional tests of artificial intelligence.

The suit was filed by a mother from Florida, Megan Garcia, who alleges that her 14-year-old son Sewell Setzer III fell victim to a Character . AI chatbot that pulled him into what she described as an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship that led to his suicide.

Meetali Jain of the Tech Justice Law Project, one of the attorneys for Garcia, said the judge’s order sends a message that Silicon Valley “needs to stop and think and impose guardrails before it launches products to market.”

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 16 hours ago

Silicon Valley “needs to stop and think and impose guardrails before it launches products to market.”

Why would they? They've had unlimited freedom to do whatever they want for 30+ years. The only place ever doing anything to reign them in is the EU. The US thinks what they are doing is "capitalism", while they recklessly rewrite the fabric of society.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 42 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (3 children)

Free speech rights for an LLM is massively dumb but he died from bad parenting. They were told he had major mental health issues by a psychologist, he was behaving erratically at home and school, and they still left a gun lying around.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

They didnt just leave a gun lying around, and they're not suing the gun company. To get a gun you have to go to a store that sells deadly weapons and give your money to someone who will tell you that it's a deadly weapon that will kill people. A gun that kills someone is doing exactly what you bought it for.

The parents in this case left an electronic stuffed animal lying around, which they had been given by someone who almost certainly didn't say "be careful, this toy may convince your child to kill themselves.". So they are suing the manufacturer, the same way they would sue a drug maker whose medicine made their kid suicidal or they would sue a therapist who told their kid to commit suicide.

"Oh, you're just a bad parent" may be an accusation of contributory negligence, but it's not an assertion that should keep a third party from having to answer for their actions.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Deadly weapons should be kept in a location that can't be easily accessible by a child with depression.

Anecdotally, I was depressed at his age and my father had guns. The gun locks stopped me the first time. Before I could figure out how to get them off, my mom noticed I wasn't in a good spot and had my dad give the guns to a relative and forbade him from telling me where.

The boy in question had an official diagnosis and they kept a gun in a shoe box in the closet. Guns should never be kept anywhere within access of a child and always under some kind of lock. There are very few cases where the owner of a gun isn't largely to blame when a kid shoots himself imo.

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah she's suing so she can blame someone else for her catastrophic failure.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

It's hard to accept your part in such, especially with something else to blame.

[–] StarMerchant938@lemmy.world 18 points 20 hours ago

Parental failings aside, this is some black mirror shit.

[–] NeonNight@lemm.ee 5 points 16 hours ago

Technology has been massively underregulated for decades now. Our politicians have no understanding of tech, AI, nor the internet. Politicians should be forced to retire at fucking 50, I’m sick of these out-of-touch idiots doing nothing with their positions of power.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

People don't even have free speech in this country anymore, why would it be different for irresponsibly wielded tech?

Because money.

They don't care if you or I die, but they care if tech grifters can't turn a profit.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago

Because the tech generates revenue that is then used to line the pockets of politicians.

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 61 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Free speech doesn't protect you from encouraging someone to kill themselves. You can, and should, be held responsible for their death, if you are actively telling someone to end their own life...and they do it.

And if that's what these fucks are selling to teenagers in the form of chat it's, then they also need to be held accountable for what their products are doing.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 18 hours ago

encouraging someone to kill themselves

I'm pretty sure that can be ignored without harm. Whether someone elects to kill themselves or not is up to them.

[–] KelvarIW@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The chatbot didn't even "actively [tell] someone to end their own life". Did you read the original transcript? Here's an excerpt from an Associated Press Article.

“I promise I will come home to you. I love you so much, Dany,” Sewell told the chatbot.

“I love you too,” the bot replied. “Please come home to me as soon as possible, my love.”

“What if I told you I could come home right now?” he asked.

“Please do, my sweet king,” the bot messaged back.

Just seconds after the Character.AI bot told him to “come home,” the teen shot himself, according to the lawsuit, filed this week by Sewell’s mother, Megan Garcia, of Orlando, against Character Technologies Inc.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm all for shuttering see things until we get them right, but this is a tragic case of a devastated mother reaching for answers, not a free speech issue.

It's heart breaking

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago

isn't free speech the bs defense that the company used. that company is definitely guilty to some degree.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hold a company accountable? I wish. Might solve a few problems with capitalism.

[–] DeathsEmbrace@lemm.ee 4 points 23 hours ago

A fee and a don't do it again so they can be on the way

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I mean, let’s see that chat log.

[–] Brandonazz@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
“I promise I will come home to you. I love you so much, Dany,” Sewell told the chatbot.

“I love you too,” the bot replied. “Please come home to me as soon as possible, my love.”

“What if I told you I could come home right now?” he asked.

“Please do, my sweet king,” the bot messaged back.

Not as the mother described, obviously.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 6 points 18 hours ago

Right. Poor kid was just suicidal, not influenced by AI.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

i need a shower just by considering that

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago
[–] StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

What about age restricting ai for anyone under 18,?

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 27 points 1 day ago (3 children)

And enforce it how? How much longer until we have to provide our ID or biometrics to use the Internet or apps? What happens at 18 that would make a person immune to this?

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Easy, we just give AI access to all our files and personal information and it will know our age!

[–] mriswith@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

How much longer until we have to provide our ID or biometrics to use the Internet or apps?

That's already a thing in some places.

In parts of Europe you have to "prove" that you're over 18 to watch videos that are age restricted on youtube. By doing something like a $0 credit card purchase on your google account.

And Discord has been talking about facial reckognition age verification in the UK over their new "sensitive content" regulation. So it would block that content if not approved via that or other thing(like digital purchase or national ID).

The law should protect everyone equally

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

As of a lonely 19yo couldn't have easily succumbed to the same fate. Heck, I was at my most depressed at 22.

[–] Paddzr@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And social media while we're at it!

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

I'm not providing ID to be able to post to Lemmy. I'd just stop using it.

HitchBot had a right to self-defence

Hail Skynet!

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Everyone who thinks KYS is a free speech issue and not a hate speech issue are severely dangerous manipulative sociopaths.

[–] ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is, the US has largely held that hate speech is free speech.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 18 hours ago

A fundamental right is not really a problem. Expression that doesn't directly harm (defamation, incitement, threat) can be ignored.