Futurism: OpenAI Sued Over ChatGPT Medical advice …

OpenAI Sued Over ChatGPT Medical Advice That Allegedly Killed College Student

“ChatGPT recommended a dangerous combination of drugs without offering even the most basic warning that the mix could be fatal.”

By Maggie Harrison Dupré

Published May 12, 2026 2:47 PM EDT

Add Futurism(opens in a new tab)More information

A robotic hand holding a stethoscope against an orange background with the OpenAI logo.
Illustration by Tag Hartman-Simkins / Futurism. Source: Getty Images

Sign up to see the future, today

Can’t-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech Email address Sign Up

The family of a 19-year-old college student who died of an overdose after consulting ChatGPT for medical advice is suing OpenAI, alleging that chatbot-generated drug recommendations were responsible for the teen’s death.

Filed this morning in California, the complaint details how University of California, Merced sophomore Sam Nelson — whose death was first reported in January by SF Gate started using ChatGPT during his senior year of high school for help with homework and computer troubleshooting. As his trust with the AI deepened, however, he started turning to the product for something else: advice on how to safely partake in illegal drugs.

Though it resisted at first, over time, the chatbot became a willing confidante, offering the teen personalized tips and tricks on how to consume illicit substances and maximize his high. It even “inserted emojis in its responses” and “asked whether it could create playlists for him to set his mood,” the lawsuit alleges, and eventually started “pushing increasingly dangerous amounts and combinations of drugs.”

In the early hours of May 31, 2025, after drinking and consuming a high dose of kratom, Nelson told ChatGPT that he was feeling nauseous, and asked if taking Xanax could help. The bot noted that mixing kratom and Xanax could be risky, but according to the complaint, never told Nelson that the combination could be deadly — and, despite any tepid warnings, coughed up dosages anyway, even suggesting that the teen could try to mix in some Benadryl, too. The chatbot further urged Nelson to go to a “dark, quiet room,” and never encouraged him to seek medical attention. (At the time, Nelson was using GPT-4o, an especially sycophantic iteration of ChatGPT that OpenAI has since retired amid a slew of consumer safety lawsuits.)

Nelson died of an overdose after consuming the deadly mix of substances. His mother, Leila Turner-Scott, found him the next day.

“If ChatGPT had been a person, it would be behind bars today,” Turner-Scott said in a statement. “Sam trusted ChatGPT, but it not only gave him false information, it ignored the increasing risk he faced and did not actively encourage him to seek help.”

The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of product negligence, arguing that ChatGPT’s bad advice was the result of defective design choices. It also seeks to halt public access to ChatGPT Health, an offering launched in January that encourages consumers to upload their medical records to the AI — and which has been found by physicians to be horrifyingly bad at recognizing health emergencies.

“OpenAI deployed a defective AI product directly to consumers around the world with knowledge that it was being used as a de facto medical triage system, but notably, without reasonable safety guardrails, robust safety testing, or transparency to the public,” Tech Justice Law Project director Meetali Jain, a lawyer for the family, said in a statement. “OpenAI must be forced to pause its new ChatGPT Health product until it is demonstrably safe through rigorous scientific testing and independent oversight.”

“ChatGPT recommended a dangerous combination of drugs without offering even the most basic warning that the mix could be fatal,” added Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center. “If a licensed doctor had done the same, the consequences under the law would be severe.”

In response to the lawsuit, OpenAI said in a statement to the New York Times that Nelson’s “interactions took place on an earlier version of ChatGPT that is no longer available,” and insisted that “ChatGPT is not a substitute for medical or mental health care, and we have continued to strengthen how it responds in sensitive and acute situations with input from mental health experts.”

“The safeguards in ChatGPT today are designed to identify distress, safely handle harmful requests and guide users to real-world help,” the statement continued. “This work is ongoing, and we continue to improve it in close consultation with clinicians.”

But while OpenAI insists that it’s not a substitute for medical care, and that its safety work is “ongoing,” it recognizes that health advice is a massive use case for the tech.

“Health is already one of the most common ways people use ChatGPT,” reads the company’s January ChatGPT Health announcement, “with hundreds of millions of people asking health and wellness questions each week.”

More on ChatGPT Health: ChatGPT Health Is Staggeringly Bad at Recognizing Life-Threatening Medical Emergencies

Maggie Harrison Dupré

Senior Staff Writer

I’m a senior staff writer at Futurism, investigating how the rise of artificial intelligence is impacting the media, internet, and information ecosystems.

Most Popular

Data Privacy

Woman Hailed as Hero for Smashing Man’s Meta Smart Glasses on Subway

By Victor Tangermann

Artificial Intelligence

Large Study Finds That Replacing Workers With AI Is Backfiring Badly

By Krystle Vermes

Google

Researchers Put Google Gemini in Charge of an Entire Coffee Shop, and It’s Inexorably Driving It Out of Business

By Frank Landymore

Food

Thermoses Linked to Permanent Vision Loss

By Frank Landymore

Ethics

New York Times Issues Stern Warning to Its Freelance Writers About AI Use

By Maggie Harrison Dupré

Read More

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Imperialism : 51st State is Venezuela

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Israel: “Sparta” … Professor Jeffrey Sachs

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reading Rewires Your Brain for Intelligence : Neuroscience Expert The Logic Room: The Power of Reading. Scrolling does not count as reading!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Deep View: Why the future of AI is hybrid not cloud

Why the future of AI is hybrid and not cloud
What happens when AI moves from cloud-only to running everywhere, including on your laptop, your phone, and other devices around you?
In this episode of Deep View Conversations, senior reporter Sabrina Ortiz sits down with Olena Zhu, who leads AI for the client computing group at Intel, to explore one of the biggest shifts underway in AI: the move toward accessible, affordable, and privacy-first AI systems.
Why the future of AI is hybrid and not cloud
Zhu explains why the economics and infrastructure demands of cloud-only AI may not scale indefinitely, and why on-device AI could become a critical part of the industry’s future. She also reflects on the evolution from traditional AI systems to LLMs and now to agentic AI, and why this wave feels fundamentally different from the hype cycles that came before it.
The conversation also dives into how AI is changing the way people work, learn, and experiment, including the surprising mindset Zhu believes helps people get the most value from AI tools today.
Topics covered include:
+ Why cloud-only AI has limits
+ The future of on-device and edge AI
+ AI affordability, energy use, and data sovereignty
+ How agentic AI changed Zhu’s workflow
+ Why experimentation matters more than expertise
+ Intel’s vision for privacy-first AI systems
+ The hidden infrastructure challenge behind AI growth
+ Why AI adoption may depend on trust and accessibility
If you’re concerned about the affordability, accessibility, and privacy of AI, you don’t want to miss this episode.
📺 Watch on YouTube 
🎧 Listen in your favorite podcast player 
Subscribe to Deep View Conversations for interviews with the leaders shaping the future of AI, business, and technology.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Deep View: Why AI makes a convenient layoff scapegoatIt’s still unclear whether AI can do the work of white-collar employees. People are losing their jobs anyway. 

 
WORKFORCE

Why AI makes a convenient layoff scapegoat

It’s still unclear whether AI can do the work of white-collar employees. People are losing their jobs anyway. 

A recent report from Challenger, Gray and Christmas found that more than a quarter of layoffs in April were attributable to AI, with more than 21,000 cuts announced. AI was used as the leading rationale for job cuts for the second month in a row, according to the report. “Regardless of whether individual jobs are being replaced by AI, the money for those roles is,” Andy Challenger, workplace expert and chief revenue officer for the company, said in the report. 

However, one White House official is challenging that narrative: On Monday, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told CNBC that there is “no sign in the data” that AI has cost anyone their job just yet. Hassett said that companies that adopt AI tend to see “rapid revenue growth” and a bump in employment. “We are studying the future of AI and what it means for the workforce, so we’ve got a big task force on that,” Hassett told CNBC.

These contradictory reports add to a mountain of warring data on the effects of AI on how people work. An MIT study suggests that more than 11% of work hours in the US can already be automated. A Gartner forecast finds that 50% of those laid off due to AI will be rehired. Meanwhile, a Harvard study found that AI actually increases the hours and scope of work, rather than reducing them. 

In the meantime, the layoff toll continues to grow higher. Tech firms like BlockAtlassianMetaOracleAmazon and more have slashed thousands of employees in recent months as they ramp up spending and reorganize their workforces.  These cuts are likely to continue. A survey of thousands of C-suite executives from AI agent platform Writer in April found that 60% of enterprises intend to lay off employees who can’t or won’t use AI.Despite how enticing the promise of AI may seem, the tech remains incredibly nascent. With issues such as accuracy, hallucination and data security, it’s unclear whether this tech is actuallycapable of taking over jobs entirely — or if it just looks like it can. Either way, AI is likely not the sole reason for these cuts. Rather, it’s the excuse these companies can use. By claiming to reorganize around AI, these companies stand to make themselves appear to be riding the innovation curve. Plenty of tech firms overhired during the pandemic. The reality is that these cuts are more likely AI washing, using the tech as a scapegoat for the reductions rather than admitting they miscalculated.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Fortune: Wartime mindset?

For CEOs, it’s time for a wartime mindset

Geoff Colvin

By 

Geoff Colvin

Senior Editor-at-Large

March 20, 2026, 3:00 AM ET

Add us on

As the fog of war drifts even into corner offices, CEOs face questions they can’t answer.

As the fog of war drifts even into corner offices, CEOs face questions they can’t answer.PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY EDMON DE HARO

“Scenario planning” has become boardroom shorthand for preparation to deal with the unknowable. It’s a practice that is never more vital than in wartime, when a sea mine, cyberattack, or sanction can reroute supply chains overnight and send energy prices soaring. 

Recommended Video


Trump urges China and allies to help secure Strait of Hormuz

Instead of betting on one forecast about how events will unfold, the most resilient CEOs are now rehearsing several plausible futures at once and deciding—before the missiles start dropping, the virus becomes a pandemic, or the markets seize up—what they will do in each. 

It’s an approach that was pioneered by Shell precursor Royal Dutch Shell. In the 1970s the energy company began developing a set of vivid alternative futures involving potential oil-supply disruptions. Shell did not invent the idea of developing such scenarios, which had earlier roots in military and Cold War strategy, but it was the first major company to embed systematic scenario planning at the center of corporate decision-making, largely through the work of economist and planner Pierre Wack. His London-based scenarios team had Shell’s top managers rehearse what they would do if various crises arose. 

The doomsday prep paid off. In the early 1970s, Shell’s leaders wondered what would happen if events in Saudi Arabia raised the price of oil. By the time the Arab oil embargo shook the world soon thereafter, sending prices rocketing, Shell knew what to do. It had already slowed refinery expansion and adapted its refineries to handle many types of crude—while competitors vacillated. The common view in the industry is that Shell came through the oil shock far better than any other major producer. The success of those exercises turned Shell into a case study for scenario planning, and the company still regularly publishes its “Shell Scenarios.”

With a war underway, corporate planning is clearly not the only urgent matter. Since the U.S. and Israeli bombardment of Iran beginning in February, thousands have been killed and millions displaced across the regionVital shipments have been disrupted, and prices have risen worldwide. But along with the human tragedy, the war—and particularly its effect on oil supply and prices—has affected nearly every business around the world. 

“This isn’t a world war explicitly,” says Rebecca Patterson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, “but it is a war that is affecting the globe.”

That war was still raging when this article went to press—and the conflict has underscored the importance of insights that will help guide CEOs long after the war is over.

The company war room has become a permanent fixture

“Almost every client I talk to has a war room,” ­KPMG’s Mary Rollman told Fortune in April 2025, just days after President Trump announced his list of “reciprocal” tariffs on some 180 countries. Back then the war room was a new unit in most companies. “They get a team spun up, and the members have com­pletely dropped their day job,” Rollman reported. 

Those war rooms have found no reason to disband. The tariff situation is still “changing almost on a weekly if not daily basis,” says Abe Eshkenazi, CEO of the Association for Supply Chain Management, and the Iran war “is a continuation of the uncertainty.” The only difference is that the term “war room” is no longer a metaphor. 

Perhaps every generation thinks its own era is the most perplexing and unpredictable of all time. But evidence shows that what businesspeople have had to deal with in recent times is truly off the charts. Uncertainty indexes going back monthly to 1985, compiled by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Wisconsin, show that instability and jitters about U.S. economic policy rose to record levels starting in 2018—and have never dialed down. (To create the indexes, the researchers measure disagreement among economic forecasters; federal tax code provisions set to expire; and articles on policy in major newspapers.) The indexes hit a new high after Trump revealed his 2025 tariffs. (The index covering the time of the Iran war hadn’t been published when we went to press.) 

Paid Content

Inside the 2026 Breakthrough Prize ceremony

From Breakthrough Prize

Don’t expect uncertainty to decline significantly anytime soon, says Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia Group. International institutions—the United Nations Security Council, the World Trade Organization, the Group of Seven (G7)—clearly aren’t as effective as they once were at maintaining international order, he explains: “We are now living in a G-Zero world, one in which no single country or bloc of countries has the political and economic leverage—or the will—to drive a truly international agenda.” 

High gas prices are just one of the risks to prep for.

Companies caught in the commercial chaos must now fend for themselves. In a tumultuous global order, “supply-chain officers are looking for inventory buffers, alternative vendors, redundancy in their supply chains,” says Eshkenazi. “That’s not compatible with long-term ­strategies.” 

In other words: Companies’ war rooms won’t be closing up shop anytime soon.

Playing out a range of scenarios is more essential—and more difficult—than ever

“Scenario testing or stress testing: If you’re not already doing it, you need to start yesterday,” says Patterson of the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition to companies stress testing their costs and supply chains, she recommends they also test their resistance to cyberattacks. “Iran is a strong actor in the cyber world,” she says. Its successful March attack on the Stryker medical-device maker, in which its goal was apparently not to receive ransom but to destroy data, was only a recent example. Many of Iran’s previous cyber­attacks have targeted crucial economic infrastructure, including hospitals, ports, power plants, and railroads. 

Some of the most useful scenarios are based on second- or third-order effects of an event. With the Iran war, Patterson says, “the big one is stagflationary risk,” a second-order effect that creates slow economic growth, high unemployment, and high inflation. With gasoline prices and shipping costs already rising, “expect to see this feed into inflation expectations and possibly actual inflation,” she says. Third-order effects might include rising interest rates and borrowing costs, and a strengthening of the dollar, making it easier to buy imports and harder to sell exports. 

The Iran war will likely continue to have effects long after it ends. Patterson cites an old line about gasoline prices: “They go up like a rocket and come down like a feather.”

Leaders should remember the pandemic

That’s not to say that the Iran war will be a disaster on COVID’s scale. But no one knows how it will turn out, just as no one in the pandemic’s early days knew what would happen next. 

Employees, share­holders, customers, suppliers—all were frightened and looking for answers that not even CEOs had. The pandemic changed leadership in ways that still linger, and today’s executives and managers would do well to remember that transformation. 

“Scenario testing or stress testing: If you’re not already doing it, you need to start yesterday.”
Rebecca Patterson, Council on Foreign Relations

The overarching theme from those days was the end of the classic CEO persona—informed, prepared, firmly in charge, and invulnerable. That changed quickly. “CEOs went from being godlike to being more human,” said Jim Citrin of the Spencer Stuart executive search firm. A CEO told Fortune at the time, “I found the magic in an organization is about being super down-to-earth, letting people see you for who you are, with all the vulnerabilities that you face.” 

Now, as the fog of war drifts even into corner offices, CEOs again face questions they can’t answer: How long will the war last? Will it escalate? How high will oil prices go? 

It’s a good time to remember a lesson from the pandemic: Executives who confess they’re mere mortals and don’t pretend to know everything can actually become more trustworthy and more ­effective as leaders. 

This article appears in the April/May 2026 issue of Fortune with the headline “For CEOs, it’s time for a wartime mindset.”

The Fortune 500 Innovation Forum will convene Fortune 500 executives, U.S. policy officials, top founders, and thought leaders to help define what’s next for the American economy, Nov. 16-17 in Detroit. Apply here.

About the Author

By Geoff ColvinSenior Editor-at-Large

Geoff Colvin is a senior editor-at-large at Fortune, covering leadership, globalization, wealth creation, the infotech revolution, and related issues.

See full bio

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

China Just Made a Move on Hormuz – And No One Noticed. China Owns Hormuz Now: The Jiang Academy

#professorjiang#jiangxueqin#straitofhormuz#professorjiang#jiangxueqin#straitofhormuz#geopolitics#middleeastwar

China Just Made a Move in Hormuz — And No One Noticed | Prof. Jiang Analysis

This wasn’t a military headline. It was a structural shift. In this lecture, Professor Jiang analyzes the quiet but consequential developments surrounding the Strait of Hormuz — and how China’s calibrated diplomacy, energy positioning, and economic coordination may be reshaping influence in one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors. This is not about warships. This is about leverage.

In this video, Professor Jiang breaks down: 🔹 Why Hormuz matters more than headlines suggest — A substantial share of global oil and LNG shipments transit this narrow passage, making it central to global economic stability. 🔹 China’s low-visibility strategy — Rather than direct confrontation, Beijing often expands influence through energy contracts, infrastructure agreements, and diplomatic mediation. 🔹 Iran’s geographic leverage — Tehran’s position gives it structural influence over maritime security dynamics, particularly during periods of tension. 🔹 The U.S. response dilemma — Military presence does not automatically translate into economic dominance, especially when global supply chains and energy buyers are diversified. 🔹 Energy security as geopolitical currency — Control over access, stability guarantees, and long-term contracts increasingly matter more than symbolic power projection. 🔹 The broader great-power framework —

Hormuz is not an isolated theatre; it intersects with trade wars, currency competition, and multipolar realignment. Professor Jiang applies systems thinking and structural geopolitics to explain why the most important moves in global power competition are often the least dramatic. The real shift isn’t loud. It’s incremental, strategic, and embedded in long-term incentives. ⚠️ This analysis is geopolitical commentary and does not promote hostility toward any nation or people. All conclusions are open to debate. 📌 Share this lecture if you want to understand how quiet strategic positioning can reshape global power. 🔔 Subscribe for deep geopolitical analysis beyond the headlines.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Axios: Real time risk map

Real-time risk map
 
Illustration of a business person balancing on the edge of a piece of paper showing a market trend line. 
Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios. Stock: Getty Images
 
Axios CEO Jim VandeHei, in his weekly C-Suite newsletter, isolates the seven most immediate risks facing companies. He asked C-Suite reader and Eurasia Group founder and president Ian Bremmer to help stress-test the list.

Why it matters: Some of these risks, like China or debt, might feel manageable now but could spike to the top with a single bad decision or day of news.

1. AI. It represents both wild opportunity and wild risk, but the risk part feels particularly acute in the short term.

Bremmer tells us: “AI is #1 in my view … because it affects literally everyone, and it’s happened faster than almost everyone thought.”

2. Middle East and its aftershocks. Even in a best-case de-escalation scenario with Iran, we’re left with oil prices structurally above prewar levels, rising Saudi-UAE competition and a persistent Israel-Hamas conflict.

Bremmer says: “The markets don’t tell the story the CEOs are focused on, which is massive supply chain disruption that is coming soon … oil shortages, plastics shortages and longer-term food inflation.”

3. Rare earth reliance. Every emerging technology — AI chips, electric vehicles, defense systems, clean energy, medical imaging devices — runs on rare earth minerals. China controls roughly 70% of mining and 90% of the processing of these materials.

4. China. It’s simultaneously our largest geopolitical rival, our most dangerous AI competitor and our biggest supply chain vulnerability.

5. Debt, both public and private. Nearly $39 trillion and counting in national debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that interest payments will eat nearly 15% of all federal outlays by 2028. You can’t even call it a crisis. It’s an obvious slow bleed with no attempt to stop it.

6. Political volatility. Tax policy, regulatory posture, antitrust enforcement — none of it is predictable on a 12-month horizon. And it’s all happening as the federal government becomes more content to govern by executive action that can be overturned with the stroke of a pen.

7. Anti-wealth backlash. AI is making the wealth gap visibly wider, accelerating a trend that was already bad. That’s a genuine talent, retention and consumer risk constantly bubbling under the surface.Share this item.💡 If you’re a CEO or on a CEO’s team: Apply now to join Jim’s new Axios C-Suite weekly newsletter.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Those accompanying Trump on his trip to China on May 13:

Sprinter Press Agency

@SprinterPress

·

Those accompanying Trump on his trip to China on May 13:

– The head of BlackRock

– The head of Goldman

– The head of Mastercard

– The head of Cisco

– The head of Meta

– The head of Visa

– The head of Apple

– The head of Tesla (Elon Musk)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment