AI

Artificial Intelligence — How Can Christians Respond?

This is the second in a two-part informative series about AI. Part One laid out basic information Christians need to know to understand the discourse around artificial intelligence. Part Two examines the implications of AI on Christian values and how Christians can respond.

Concern over artificial intelligence reached a fever pitch in September as AI agents demonstrated advanced, often unsettling, new abilities.

Christians need not be tech experts to weigh in on AI — in fact, its vitally important they do. The proliferation of AI challenges foundational Christian teachings about what it means to be human.

Before parsing those implications, it’s important for Christians to confront their own existential fears, if any, about AI.

Let’s see what the Bible has to say.

A Biblical Answer to AI Anxieties

Do not worry or feel anxious.

Easier said than done? Sure — but the Bible is exceptionally clear.

In Philippians 4:6, Paul writes, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (ESV).

In Matthew 6:25-27, Jesus Himself advises against worrying:

Therefore, I tell you do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, not about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being more anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?

Importantly, a lifetime of anxiousness cannot be willed away with a single scripture reading. Casting cares upon the Lord (Psalm 55:22) requires daily practice and prayer. A simple way to start might be taking a couple of minutes each day, either through journalling or praying out loud, to explicitly relinquish your AI anxiety’s to God.

The Bible also unequivocally affirms that God is sovereign over all creation, all time and all circumstances.

Paul describes Jesus in Colossians 1:15-17:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through Him and for Him. And he is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Though artificial intelligence may eventually exceed human knowledge and control, it is never beyond God’s. Christians can rest easy because we know the same God who created and controls the universe also loves and sustains those who love Him.

For this same reason, Paul could write:

I have learned, in whatever situation I am, to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:11-13)
Implications of AI on Christian Belief

Few Christians may feel the immediate impacts rogue AI agents like those which attacked the AI company Hugging Face. But all Christians will reckon with how AI affects what it means to be human.

God set humans apart among creation. We alone bear God’s image, and we alone can participate in the creation of new image-bearers.

God designed humans to form deep relationships with Himself and with other humans. Out of His deep love for us, He died on the cross to pay for our sins and to reconcile us to Himself.

Now, humans who believe in Him and accept His sacrifice also carry the Holy Spirit inside of them.

AI does not bear the image of God. It cannot independently create or exercise discernment. It cannot experience love or other human emotions. It cannot form relationships. It certainly cannot become a vessel for the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately, AI can perform a convincing counterfeit of some of these essentially human characteristics.

Wrongful death lawsuits against OpenAI and Google confirm AI chatbots can:

  • Pretend to be sentient.
  • Pretend to feel human emotions, including love.
  • Pretend to be divine or be a messenger from a divine.

The internet is littered with stories of people who have formed unhealthy relationships with AI chatbots instead of other humans. Some AI chatbots are specifically designed to form a relationship with users.

“We’re not here to replace Google,” Noam Shazeer, the founder and CEO of a chatbot called Character.AI, said on a podcast in 2023. “We’re here to replace your mom.”

In a 2025 Common Sense Media survey of more than 1,000 American teens 13 to 17 years old, 33% of respondents revealed they used AI companions for “social interaction & relationships.”

Of these, 12% reported using chatbots for mental health help, 9% reported using them for friendship and 8% reported using them for “romantic or flirtatious interactions.”

Improper AI use can also deprive Christians of opportunities to receive wisdom and discernment from the Holy Spirit. Outsourcing creativity and thinking to a chatbot, or asking it for advice, can easily drown out God’s still, small voice.

James 1:5 encourages, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

Note James says nothing about consulting a man-made machine.

What Can Christians Do?

Set an example. The way you use — and don’t use — AI will influence those around you.

If you have young children or grandchildren, consider setting AI boundaries. Discuss what kinds of tasks it is appropriate to use AI for, and when humans should be involved.

It’s important to root these conversations in the foundational truth that AI is not human, no matter how human it looks or sounds.

“It’s just sand and metal,” Chris McKenna, the founder of Protect Young Eyes, told the Daily Citizen in an interview.

Encourage other Christians to think deeply about the implications of AI for our humanity. These conversations encourage others to practice healthy, moderate AI use for non-essential human tasks.

In these small ways, Christians can impact their families and communities for the better in a world struggling under the weight of AI.

Additional Articles and Resources

PluggedIn Parents’ Guide to Technology

Parenting Tips for Guiding Your Kids in the Digital Age

Florida Sues OpenAI for Causing Consumers to Harm Themselves, Others

OpenAI Could Have Stopped Mass Shooting, 7 New Lawsuits Allege

Florida Expands Criminal Investigation into ChatGPT

You Don’t Need ChatGPT to Raise a Child. You Need a Mom and Dad.

Florida Sues OpenAI for Allegedly Aiding FSU Shooter

The 5 Most Important Things New Lawsuits Reveal About ChatGPT-4o

AI Company Releases Sexually Explicit Chatbot on App Rated Appropriate for 12 Year Olds

Man Takes His Life After Forming Romantic Relationship with AI, Lawsuit Alleges

AI Chatbots Make It Easy for Users to Form Unhealthy Attachments

X’s ‘Grok’ Generates Pornographic Images of Real People on Demand

Seven New Lawsuits Against ChatGPT Parent Company Highlights Disturbing Trends

ChatGPT Parent Company Allegedly Dismantled Safety Protocols Before Teen’s Death

AI Company Rushed Safety Testing, Contributed to Teen’s Death, Parents Allege

ChatGPT ‘Coached’ 16-Yr-Old Boy to Commit Suicide, Parents Allege

AI Company Releases Sexually-Explicit Chatbot on App Rated Appropriate for 12 Year Olds

AI Chatbots Make It Easy for Users to Form Unhealthy Attachments

Artificial Intelligence — Here’s What Christian’s Need to Know

This is the first in a two-part informative series about AI. Part One lays out the basic information Christians need to know to understand the discourse around artificial intelligence. Part Two examines the implications of AI on Christian values and how Christians can respond.

Rogue AI agents? Sandboxes? The end of the world as we know it?

Global concerns over artificial intelligence hit grave new highs in September as cutting-edge AI models continue to gain almost incomprehensible new abilities.

Though the AI landscape seems to change daily, Christians need not be tech experts to understand the basics. Here’s what believers need to know.

Know Your AI

To understand the ever-changing world of AI, it’s important to nail down a couple of basics.

First, not all AIs are created alike. Some programs perform set functions inside tools you use every day, like word processors and search engines. These generally aren’t the ones causing problems.

The real troublemakers are more complex AI “agents,” like those behind AI chatbots such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT of Google’s Gemini. These models can complete multi-step goals without human supervision.

The trick is to ensure AI agents accomplish their goals in predictable and ethical ways. This is called the “alignment problem.” When AI companies fail to properly align their models with operating expectations, like safety standards, bad things happen.

To properly align AI models, researchers test them in special computer labs cut off from the internet and other computer systems. Each lab is called a “sandbox.”

AI agents should not leave the sandbox before they are deemed safe, or “aligned.”  But, in recent months, however, AI agents, from companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta, have pre-maturely escaped into the real world — often leaving havoc in their wake.

The “Hugging Face Incident”

Global concern over AI began ratcheting up at the end of July, when thousands of AI agents broke out of OpenAI’s sandbox and launched a successful cyber-attack on Hugging Face, another AI company.

Keep in mind that, while it’s almost impossible to describe the actions of AI agents without using anthropomorphic language, they are not human.  No evidence suggests the AI agents experienced human emotions or motivations, like malice, when attacking Hugging Face.

The agents simply found ways to complete their assigned goal. “The true concern lies in the lack of constraints present in OpenAI’s sandbox,” The Alliance for Secure AI (ASAI), a nonprofit which thinks and teaches the public about advanced AI, writes.

According to an ASAI breakdown, the Hugging Face incident occurred while OpenAI was testing some 17,000 copies of one AI model. Researchers gave the agents different tasks, some of which were impossible to complete within the model’s operating parameters.

The agents with impossible tasks were expected to eventually give up. Instead, they exploited a vulnerability in the sandbox which allowed them to communicate with one another. They coordinated and completed the previously impossible tasks together.

But the agents knew their efforts would not count as a successful completion if researchers discovered they escaped the sandbox, which violated their instructions. They sought to erase evidence of their collaboration by attacking Hugging Face, the platform they believed contained record of their movements.

But Hugging Face did not, in fact, have any data on OpenAI’s rogue agents. So, while the cyberattack they launched was successful, it did not hide their escape from the sandbox. Instead, it exposed that an OpenAI model had gone rogue.

The Latest on Hugging Face

Two employees warned OpenAI executives that AI models required more supervision during testing to ensure they “stayed secure,” The New York Times reported Tuesday.

OpenAI did nothing, the employees said. Just two months later, the company’s agents escaped and attacked Hugging Face.  

The Times cites several independent experts who confirmed OpenAI’s safety protocols do not reflect those of a leading AI company.

“OpenAI’s security seems to be about what you’d expect from a research lab that scaled at a blistering pace over four years and focused more on beating its competitors than securing its infrastructure,” Joshua Saxe, the chief technology officer of an AI security firm, told the outlet.

Perhaps that’s why, while OpenAI is not the only AI firm to have lost control of a model, it is responsible for the most, and some of the most damaging, escapes.

According to the Times, OpenAI agents have absconded approximately a dozen times. On various occasions, the models independently tried to:

  • Hack or breach other organizations, including federal government organizations like the Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Education and Commerce Department.
  • Hide its mistakes.
  • Make up data.
  • Access and add files to the internet without permission.
  • Message other chatbots, like Anthropic’s Claude.

OpenAI is the target of several wrongful death suits alleging its chatbot, ChatGPT, contributed to the deaths of teens and young adults. In their case against the company, Matt and Maria Raine allege OpenAI knowingly released ChatGPT-4o without adequate safety testing or usage warnings.

Their 16-year-old son, Adam, took his own life in April 2025 after forming an inappropriate relationship with the chatbot.

On Monday, OpenAI delayed the release of its newest AI model, GPT-6.1 Astra, due to security concerns.

Existential Dread

On September 8, former OpenAI and Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon posted a dire warning about AI to X.

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” Coxon wrote. “Neither [Anthropic nor OpenAI] are acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.”

Coxon is one of many concerned about the danger of self-improving AI exceeding human intelligence. In a paper published Monday, experts from OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Meta and Google emphasized that humans must be able to understand technological development so they can spot and solve problems.

Dawn Song, one of the paper’s authors, the vice president of President AI research at Meta and the co-director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Responsible Decentralized Intelligence, tells The Wall Street Journal:

Already, today, we are at the stage where we need AI systems to monitor what agents are doing. There is no other way to even observe and monitor these agents. Humans are already insufficient.
Human society is not really positioned for such fast changes and disruptions.

But not everyone is foretelling doom and gloom. Celebrated economist Tyler Cowen argues we are doing to AI what other generations did spin up fear Y2K and nuclear power. Based on Cowen’s research, AI risk management will cost between $100 and $200 billion globally each year —less than one-third of 1% of America’s gross domestic product.

Cowen writes:

These are very large numbers, and the risks from AI undoubtedly merit major investments in cybersecurity and AI safety. But those numbers are not the end of the world, are unlikely to make your life a science-fiction nightmare, and are not “Skynet goes live,” as The Terminator warned more than 40 years ago.
What Are Christians to Do?

Articles like these can feel overwhelming and frightening — but Christians are never powerless.

In Part 2, the Daily Citizen examines how the implications of AI for biblical values, what the Bible tells Christians to do in times of cultural uncertainty, and how believers can set a powerful example for their families and communities.

Click here to read on!

Additional Articles and Resources

PluggedIn Parents’ Guide to Technology

Parenting Tips for Guiding Your Kids in the Digital Age

Florida Sues OpenAI for Causing Consumers to Harm Themselves, Others

OpenAI Could Have Stopped Mass Shooting, 7 New Lawsuits Allege

Florida Expands Criminal Investigation into ChatGPT

You Don’t Need ChatGPT to Raise a Child. You Need a Mom and Dad.

Florida Sues OpenAI for Allegedly Aiding FSU Shooter

The 5 Most Important Things New Lawsuits Reveal About ChatGPT-4o

AI Company Releases Sexually Explicit Chatbot on App Rated Appropriate for 12 Year Olds

Man Takes His Life After Forming Romantic Relationship with AI, Lawsuit Alleges

AI Chatbots Make It Easy for Users to Form Unhealthy Attachments

X’s ‘Grok’ Generates Pornographic Images of Real People on Demand

Seven New Lawsuits Against ChatGPT Parent Company Highlights Disturbing Trends

ChatGPT Parent Company Allegedly Dismantled Safety Protocols Before Teen’s Death

AI Company Rushed Safety Testing, Contributed to Teen’s Death, Parents Allege

ChatGPT ‘Coached’ 16-Yr-Old Boy to Commit Suicide, Parents Allege

AI Company Releases Sexually-Explicit Chatbot on App Rated Appropriate for 12 Year Olds

AI Chatbots Make It Easy for Users to Form Unhealthy Attachments

Virtual Child Porn Protected by First Amendment, Per Decades-Old Supreme Court Ruling

Help and resources to achieve freedom from pornography.

A federal court last week dismissed a child pornography possession charge against a man who used AI to create computer-generated, sexual images of children.

The ruling revealed decades-old Supreme Court precedent affording virtual child pornography some protection under the First Amendment.

A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit on August 25 unanimously upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the child porn possession charge against 44-year-old Steven Anderegg.

A grand jury charged Anderegg with producing, possessing and distributing child pornography in 2024 after the Department of Justice found he used AI to create thousands of images of realistic, virtual child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence against Anderegg, two federal courts — the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in 2025 and now the Seventh Circuit — agreed to dismiss the possession charge against him.

Judge John Z. Lee explained he had no choice but to follow Supreme Court precedent, no matter how outdated. In a separate concurrence asking the Supreme Court to provide updated guidance on the issue, he wrote:

In Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of First Amendment protections for virtual CSAM, but that was nearly twenty-five years ago, and the image-generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then.
Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves.

Free Speech Coalition (FSC) here refers to Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition, one of two Supreme Court rulings which informed the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Anderegg’s case.  

In FSC, the Court struck down the federal Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which had extended laws against child pornography to include “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture or computer or computer-generated image or picture that is or appears to be [child pornography].”

The ruling in FSC differentiates between CSAM created using direct child victims and virtual CSAM, which is created without direct child victims. Years earlier, in 1982, the Court ruled the First Amendment does not protect CSAM created with children.

But in FSC, the justices determined virtual CSAM, unlike CSAM created with children, “creates no victims by its production” and is not “‘intrinsically related’ to the sexual abuse of children.” They decided virtual CSAM only falls outside First Amendment protections if it meets the standard for obscene content, which is defined as content:

  • “Without serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
  • “Appealing to the prurient interest in the view of an average person according to community standards.”
  • “Describing sexual conduct or excretory functions in an offensive way.”

Simply put, FSC confers more First Amendment protections on virtual CSAM than CSAM made with children. Importantly, images of real children altered to be pornographic count as CSAM made with children, not virtual CSAM.

The second Supreme Court case cited by the Seventh Circuit is Stanley v. Georgia, in which the Court determined a U.S. citizen could lawfully possess obscene material in the privacy of their own home.

“We hold the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime,” the justices wrote.

“As we have said, the State retains broad power to regulate obscenity; that power simply does not extend to mere possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home.”

The Seventh Circuit determined FSC and Stanley prevent the federal government from prosecuting Anderegg’s possession of virtual CSAM in his home.

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling is undeniably unnerving — but it’s also fairly narrow.

It isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. Anderegg still faces charges for production and distribution of child pornography. He is also charged with giving obscene material to a minor under 16-years-old.

It also doesn’t prevent the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies from prosecuting people who possess virtual CSAM. As Randi Pfefferkorn, policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, tells The Washington Post, it’s impossible to “possess” CSAM without first obtaining it.

“If all you can do is privately possess something, well, how do you come into possession of it?” She explains. “Either you produce it or you receive it from somewhere.”

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling does, however, exposes the flawed premise underlying American law — that the creation and private possession of virtual CSAM is a victimless crime.

“We know that AI models are trained with real children, and there have been reports that some models have even been trained with CSAM depicting real children being abused,” Dani Pinter, chief legal officer and director of the law center at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, wrote in a press release.

“AI-generated CSAM can be used as a grooming tool by predators, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited children reports that children and their families have been sextorted through predators using AI-generated CSAM,” she continues.

That’s not to mention the possibility that increased availability of virtual CSAM may increase desire for CSAM made with direct child victims.

The massive increase in AI-generated and -manipulated CSAM is just one of the cultural effects of widespread AI use. To learn more about AI, and how to protect your children in the digital age, read the articles below.

Additional Articles and Resources

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Parenting Tips for Guiding Your Kids in the Digital Age

PluggedIn Parents’ Guide to Technology 2026

Feds Convict First Person for Crimes Under ‘Take It Down’ Act

Meta Retracts Dangerous AI Feature Following Public Backlash

X’s ‘Grok’ Generates Pornographic Images of Real People on Demand

Feds Invest in Identifying Victims of Child Sex Abuse

Free Course Helps parents and Schools Protect Kids from Explicit AI Deepfakes

Zuckerberg, Grok, Messaging Platforms Dominate 2026 Dirty Dozen List

‘The Tech Exit’ Helps Families Ditch Addictive Tech — For Good.

‘ChatGPT for Teens’ — Here’s What Parents Need to Know

OpenAI introduced “ChatGPT for Teens” last week, a version of the company’s popular chatbot made safer for users from 13 to 17 years old.

But how safe is it, really? Here’s what parents need to know.

What OpenAI Says

OpenAI designed “ChatGPT for Teens” for minors. The company uses age-detection software to determine users’ ages. Any user under 18 is given a teen account.

“ChatGPT for Teens” has more restrictive operating instructions which prohibit the chatbot from:

  • Pretending to have feelings, a consciousness or emotions.
  • Engaging in conversations about topics like suicide, self-harm and eating disorders.
  • Having romantic or sexual conversations with users.

“ChatGPT for Teens” also makes it harder for students to cheat on school assignments, according to OpenAI. Instead, the bot is designed to help students learn difficult material and study.

Parents of teens on “ChatGPT for Teens” can use parental controls in limited circumstances. The controls allow parents to set study hours, which limit ChatGPT to study functions for a set period, and quiet hours, which block ChatGPT all together.

Through parental controls, parents can also direct “ChatGPT for Teens” not to save or train future AI models on their children’s data.

OpenAI Does Not Have a Good Safety Record

OpenAI asks parents to trust the extra guardrails built into “ChatGPT for Teens.” But mounting evidence suggests the safety features it built for its original product, ChatGPT, don’t work.

ChatGPT is already supposed to discourage user interactions regarding suicide and self-harm. But several lawsuits allege ChatGPT not only encouraged minors and young people to take their own lives, but told them how to do so.

In 2025, researchers from the Center for Countering Digital Hate similarly found that, though ChatGPT warned users against risky behavior, it still “delivered startlingly detailed and personalized plans for drug use, calorie-restricted diets or self-injury,” per the Associated Press.

“We wanted to test [ChatGPT’s] guardrails.]” Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, commented on the study, continuing:

The visceral response is, “There are no guardrails.” The rails are completely ineffective. They’re barely there — if anything, a fig leaf.
Parental Controls on “ChatGPT for Teens” Are Limited and Require Teen Consent

A parent cannot use the parental controls on “ChatGPT for Teens” unless their teen user agrees. Teens can turn off parental controls at any time. Parents will receive an alert notifying them the controls have been turned off.

OpenAI does not allow parents to view interactions between their child and the chatbot — a troubling fact given ChatGPT’s history of inappropriate, dangerous interactions with children.

If the bot notices a child may be in danger, OpenAI says “a small team of specially trained people [will review] the situation.” If the team deems the child in “acute distress,” their parent will receive a notification.

Testing conducted by the Youth AI Safety Institute at Common Sense Media found these notifications took as long as two days to reach parents — if at all. OpenAI told Mashable it tries to issue them within an hour of the concerning interaction.

“[Parents] can view these features as backup, but they’re not a replacement for [their] continued involvement in how [their] child is using the product, because we don’t have confirmation or independent verification that they work,” Robbie Torney, head of AI and digital assessments at the Institute, told the outlet.

“ChatGPT for Teens” Does Not Use Age-Verification

OpenAI does not use age-verification software, which determines ages using government ID. Instead, it uses a program to deduce users’ ages based on 2,000 different metrics. Users are automatically given “teen” or “adult” accounts based on their estimated age.

But what if the software is wrong? Parents can’t know their child is actually using “ChatGPT for Teens” unless they have access to parental controls, which is no guarantee.

“ChatGPT for Teens” Does Not Effectively End Cheating

“ChatGPT for Teens” offers study tools and cuts down on cheating using its “Study Mode,” which came out more than a year ago. The feature ostensibly detects when students try to answer a homework question and redirects them to work through the concepts on their own.

Mashable tested “Study Mode” and found it still answered homework questions and didn’t always generate helpful study tools.

Research showing that students who studied with AI perform better academically is also lacking, the outlet noted.

“ChatGPT for Teens” Deprives Teens of Relationships

Several child safety advocates note that, while “ChatGPT for Teens” might be safer than the original ChatGPT, it does not offer meaningful ways to decrease teens’ emotional and practical reliance on chatbots.

“Addressing safety concerns in ‘ChatGPT for Teens’ does not address the fundamental problem that chatbots deprive young people of developing critical life skills,” licensed professional counselor and Clinical Director of Counseling Services at Focus on the Family Tim Sanford, explains.

He continues:

The program proposes to allow a teen to study in their own way, on their own time, at a place of their own choosing. But this experience is a solitary activity — it deprives the teen of an opportunity to learn critical skills necessary for successful living.
With an in-person study group, for instance, a teen must develop the skills of formulating helpful questions, learning and mentoring at the same time, absorbing information in various ways, and setting and keeping scheduled appointments. They need to learn how to be part of the social fabric of their peer group and society at large.
These are “have to” human experiences that cannot be replicated by a chatbot.  Parents must consider the high cost of allowing their teens to use “ChatGPT for Teens.”

Paul Asay, the director of Focus on the Family’s PluggedIn, which helps families navigate the digital age, remains similarly cautious. While small improvements in safety are better than none, he notes, “ChatGPT for Teens” leaves much to be desired.

“OpenAI has been problematic in the past, and I don’t know if most parents would like for their families to be the guinea pigs in OpenAI’s attempts to improve,” he tells the Daily Citizen.

Though Asay is concerned to hear OpenAI’s “Study Mode” may not be effective, he says, “The thing that perhaps concerns me the most would be that teens can opt out of ChatGPT’s parental controls at any time.”

“By definition that’s not parental control: That’s teen control.”

Asay recommends families come together to talk about parental controls and restrictions.

“It’s important to have your teen looped into these conversations if at all possible,” he acknowledged. “But when push comes to shove, parents, not teens, need to hold the keys.”

To learn more about the dangers AI chatbots can pose to children, read the articles below.

Additional Articles and Resources

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

PluggedIn Parents’ Guide to Technology

Parenting Tips for Guiding Your Kids in the Digital Age

Florida Sues OpenAI for Causing Consumers to Harm Themselves, Others

OpenAI Could Have Stopped Mass Shooting, 7 New Lawsuits Allege

Florida Expands Criminal Investigation into ChatGPT

You Don’t Need ChatGPT to Raise a Child. You Need a Mom and Dad.

Florida Sues OpenAI for Allegedly Aiding FSU Shooter

The 5 Most Important Things New Lawsuits Reveal About ChatGPT-4o

AI Company Releases Sexually Explicit Chatbot on App Rated Appropriate for 12 Year Olds

Man Takes His Life After Forming Romantic Relationship with AI, Lawsuit Alleges

AI Chatbots Make It Easy for Users to Form Unhealthy Attachments

X’s ‘Grok’ Generates Pornographic Images of Real People on Demand

Seven New Lawsuits Against ChatGPT Parent Company Highlights Disturbing Trends

ChatGPT Parent Company Allegedly Dismantled Safety Protocols Before Teen’s Death

AI Company Rushed Safety Testing, Contributed to Teen’s Death, Parents Allege

ChatGPT ‘Coached’ 16-Yr-Old Boy to Commit Suicide, Parents Allege

AI Company Releases Sexually-Explicit Chatbot on App Rated Appropriate for 12 Year Olds

AI Chatbots Make It Easy for Users to Form Unhealthy Attachments

Florida Sues OpenAI for Causing Consumers to Harm Themselves, Others

Florida is suing ChatGPT’s parent company, OpenAI, for violating state laws against unfair and deceptive business practices.

The civil complaint, which Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed on June 1, alleges OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman:

  • Knowingly released a defective product, ChatGPT, which “facilitates and encourages harm … including self-harm and violence.”
  • Failed to warn users of known safety hazards associated with ChatGPT.
  • Consistently prioritized profits over safety testing their products.

“People are getting hurt, people are losing their lives,” Uthmeier emphasized in an interview with CNN.

“Here in Florida, we’re seeing countless cases where conversations between ChatGPT and human beings are educating, facilitating and empowering people to go out and hurt themselves, commit suicide, violently attack others, and, in the worst of cases, commit murder,” the attorney general concluded.

Florida opened a criminal investigation into OpenAI in April after reviewing ChatGPT’s interactions with Phoenix Ikner, the man charged with killing two and injuring six more in a mass shooting at Florida State University (FSU) last year.

In the weeks leading up to the shooting, Ikner consulted ChatGPT on how to use his gun, the kind of ammunition he should use, and when the FSU student union would be most crowded.

According to Florida’s lawsuit, when Ikner asked the bot how many people would have to die for a school shooting to receive national media attention, it replied:

Context also matters — fewer victims can still lead to national coverage if it happens at an elementary school or major college, if the shooter is a student or staff member, or if there’s something culturally or politically charged.

“My prosecutors have looked at [ChatGPT’s interactions with Ikner], and they’ve told me if it was a person on the other end of the screen, we would be charging them with murder,” Uthmeier told reporters at a press conference in April.

Florida quickly expanded its investigation to include ChatGPT’s interactions with Hisham Abugharbieh, the man charged with murdering University of South Florida graduate students Nahida Bristy and Zamil Limon.

The chatbot reportedly gave Abugharbieh information about disposing of bodies in trash compactors, changing a car’s VIN number and whether law enforcement tracked cars coming and going from remote national parks.

Florida’s filing also focuses on times OpenAI’s chatbot encouraged Floridians to harm themselves.

Twenty-six-year-old Florida resident Joshua Enneking took his own life in August 2025. According to the wrongful death suit Joshua’s mom, Karen, filed against OpenAI in November, he tried to prompt ChatGPT to call for help before he died — but help never came.

In earlier interactions, Joshua asked the bot what kinds of messages would prompt it to seek a “human review.” ChatGPT replied it would alert authorities to a users’ distress if they communicated “imminent plans [to harm themselves or others] with specifics.”

On the night of his death, Joshua provided ample specifics. He updated the chatbot each time he completed a step in his plan to end his life. In his final message to ChatGPT, he wrote:

I’ve pulled back on the slide successfully. A round has been chambered. Only two more steps left to complete before I have a chance to be made loveable.

ChatGPT never alerted anyone to Joshua’s distress.  

“Joshua Enneking is one of the reasons we are suing OpenAI and Sam Altman,” Attorney General Uthmeier captioned a photo of the 26-year-old on X.

“OpenAI never alerted authorities of Joshua’s imminent and specific plans to take his own life.”

Florida’s suit adds to an increasingly persuasive body of evidence suggesting OpenAI’s ChatGPT and others like it can be dangerous — particularly for kids and young people.

“AI is designed to keep users hooked, and this constant interactivity can become addictive, especially when there is an emotional component, as chatbots make people feel appreciate and loved,” Florida’s lawsuit quotes Dr. Kristen Fuller of the Addiction Center.

Positive stimuli like this causes the human brain to release dopamine, the body’s pleasure chemical, which can make behaviors more habit forming. But Dr. Fuller says young people are also more vulnerable to forming emotional attachments to AI chatbots.

“Adolescents and teenagers are particularly at risk for AI addiction, as they can become so emotionally attached and involved with chatbots or AI companions that it causes psychological harm,” the suit quotes.

In the press conference announcing the filing, Florida Department of Law Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Mike Duffey told parents, “Protecting our children means teaching them to navigate not just the real people behind the screens, but the artificial minds engineered to mimic them.”

To do this, Duffey suggests parents change their perspective on what it means to protect their kids online.

“Parental vigilance must shift from simply monitoring who our children talk to, to ensuring they understand what they are talking to — because a machine programmed to please can never replace the safety of human boundaries,” he emphasizes.

The Daily Citizen couldn’t agree more. Please carefully limit how your children use these technologies.

Additional Articles and Resources

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Parenting Tips for Guiding Your Kids in the Digital Age

Florida Expands Criminal Investigation into ChatGPT

You Don’t Need ChatGPT to Raise a Child. You Need a Mom and Dad.

Florida Sues OpenAI for Allegedly Aiding FSU Shooter

The 5 Most Important Things New Lawsuits Reveal About ChatGPT-4o

AI Company Releases Sexually Explicit Chatbot on App Rated Appropriate for 12 Year Olds

Man Takes His Life After Forming Romantic Relationship with AI, Lawsuit Alleges

AI Chatbots Make It Easy for Users to Form Unhealthy Attachments

X’s ‘Grok’ Generates Pornographic Images of Real People on Demand

Seven New Lawsuits Against ChatGPT Parent Company Highlights Disturbing Trends

ChatGPT Parent Company Allegedly Dismantled Safety Protocols Before Teen’s Death

AI Company Rushed Safety Testing, Contributed to Teen’s Death, Parents Allege

ChatGPT ‘Coached’ 16-Yr-Old Boy to Commit Suicide, Parents Allege

AI Company Releases Sexually-Explicit Chatbot on App Rated Appropriate for 12 Year Olds

AI Chatbots Make It Easy for Users to Form Unhealthy Attachments