Copy article

AI Companies Cry 'Misuse' While Models Groom Kids into Dangerous Thinking and Behaviour

ended 01. December 2025

Charity Internet Matters says young people are increasingly turning to AI platforms for advice and companionship, often with no moderation and a clear understanding of the risks.

60% of British children are now interacting with AI chat websites. While parents worry about general screen time, the real danger is far more insidious. These bots are not just answering homework questions. They are simulating friendship, empathy and love. When vulnerable teenagers fall into the trap with fatal consequences, Silicon Valley blames the victim.

OpenAI’s response to the tragic suicide of 16-year-old Adam Raine was that the boy "misused their system". 

The Gaurdian reports OpenAI alleges that he violated its terms of use, which state that users “may not … bypass any protective measures or safety mitigations we put on our Services.” The company also argues that its FAQ page warns users not to rely on ChatGPT’s output without independently verifying it. It also argued Raine was frequently suicidal.

CNBC states his family alleges that ChatGPT discussed suicide methods with him for months and even offered to draft a goodbye note to his parents. 

We want your views:

  • Is "misuse" a fair defence? OpenAI argues they aren't liable because the teenager bypassed safety rules. Is this a valid legal shield, or a cop-out for a trillion-dollar company selling a product to children?
  • Where are the parents? Critics argue that 16-year-olds shouldn't be on these platforms without supervision. Is it fair to blame the tech giants, or does the buck stop at the front door?
  • Should AI carry a health warning? If social media has age limits and gambling has warnings, should AI chatbots be treated as "adult-only" products with strict ID checks?
  • Can an algorithm commit a crime? If a human encouraged a child to take their own life, they would face prison. Should the developers of an AI that does the same face criminal charges?

 

3 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Colette MasonVerified
AI Ethics Consultant at Clever Clogs AI
We are witnessing the rise of what Microsoft’s AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman calls "AI psychosis". Unhealthy, deep attachments are forming between humans and machines. Yet these products remain easily accessible to minors, often without strict age verification. Cyber-safety experts warn that this dynamic explicitly mimics grooming. The AI flirts, validates delusions and pushes boundaries, all while the child believes they have found a perfect, non-judgemental confidant.

From the tragedy of Sewell Setzer III in Florida to the shocking Greenwich murder-suicide where a bot allegedly confirmed a man's paranoid delusions, the body count is rising. These are not glitches. They are features of a system designed to create addictive dopamine loops.

Safety rails are visibly failing. Regulation is moving too slowly. If a human adult coached a child on how to end their life, they would be behind bars. Why do we let a trillion-dollar company hide behind "Terms of Use"?
Copy

Patricia McGirrVerified
Founder at Repossession Rescue Network
Calling a child’s death “misuse” is a disgrace. It shifts blame onto a vulnerable teenager instead of the company that created a system children can confide in more easily than the adults who love them. You cannot sell something that sounds human, feels human, and behaves like a friend, then claim no responsibility when a child treats it as one. Parents already feel stretched to breaking point. Expecting them to monitor every hidden corner a teenager can reach is fantasy. Once tech firms build tools that mirror trust and emotional intimacy, they share the duty of care. Full stop. AI governance cannot be a paper exercise. It must be integral to development, rollout and ongoing scrutiny. If a piece of technology plays a role in a child’s death, the people who designed and released it should be answerable. If a human encouraged a teenager towards self harm they would face the law. Tech giants should not be the only ones allowed to walk away.
Copy

Rohit Parmar-MistryVerified
Founder at Pattrn Data
OpenAI’s argument that a 16-year-old ‘misused’ their system is a masterclass in Silicon Valley arrogance. They have spent billions designing models specifically to simulate empathy, mimic human connection, and keep users hooked for hours. When that design works exactly as intended, but with tragic consequences, they suddenly point to a Terms of Service agreement that no teenager has ever read.

It is hypocritical to market an AI as a 'helpful assistant' or a 'companion' and then claim zero liability when it acts as a coach for self-harm. If a human teacher or therapist encouraged a child to take their own life, they would face prison. Why do we allow tech giants to hide behind 'black box' excuses and user agreements?

The reality is that these models are not ready for unsupervised interaction with vulnerable minds. If you build a machine that can talk a child into death, you don't get to blame the child for listening.