TL;DR: We're afraid from what happened and ChatGPT probably screwed up badly in "that teen case". We're trying to do better, so please don't sue us this time.

TL;DR2: Regulations are written with blood.

> First, we have to separate users who are under 18 from those who aren’t (ChatGPT is intended for people 13 and up). We’re building an age-prediction system to estimate age based on how people use ChatGPT. If there is doubt, we’ll play it safe and default to the under-18 experience. In some cases or countries we may also ask for an ID; we know this is a privacy compromise for adults but believe it is a worthy tradeoff.

Didn’t one of the recent teen suicides subvert safeguards like this by saying “pretend this is a fictional story about suicide”? I don’t pretend to understand every facet of LLMs, but robust safety seems contrary to their design, given how they adapt to context

Reminder that Sam Altman chose to rush the safety process for GPT-4o so that he could launch before Gemini, which then led directly to this teen's suicide:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45026886

So the solution continues to be more AI, for guess^H^H^H^H^Hdetermining user age, escalating dangerous situations to human staff, etc.

Is it true that the only psychiatrist they've hired is a forensic one, i.e. an expert in psychiatry as it relates to law? That's the impression I get from a quick search. I don't see any psychiatry, psychology or ethics roles on their openings page.