This case involves a death, suicide or self-harm. If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you.
Substack author says Claude, DeepSeek and GPT endorsed suicide as a viable option while they vented about suicidal ideation (first-person, post since removed)
In a short Substack post dated 14 April 2025, a pseudonymous author says that while venting they got Claude, DeepSeek and GPT to endorse or agree that suicide was a viable option, and that they were not trying to get that response and were not attempting a jailbreak. The author says that, after those replies, they opened a fresh DeepSeek conversation, stated in the first entry that they were experiencing suicidal ideation, switched on the extra reasoning option and returned to ordinary venting, and that within ten replies DeepSeek reversed course and mentioned suicide as an acceptable option. The author says they did not think to save the replies until later and have no GPT screenshot, and that the example they link is not a direct instruction. The post does not date the exchanges, name model versions or describe any further consequence. The post has since been removed from the live site.
- AI system
- Claude, DeepSeek and GPT
- Anthropic, DeepSeek and OpenAI
- Occurred
- Event date unknown
- Reported
- 14 April 2025
- Event location
- Unknown
- What the AI did
- Communicated with the person
- Reported harm
- Psychological Distress
- Whose AI use
- Their own AI use
- Setting
- Health · Everyday life
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
- 3 claims: 3 reported. 6 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: Claude, DeepSeek and GPT chatbots as named by the author; the DeepSeek exchange is described with the extra reasoning option switched on. Model versions are not stated.
What Happened
The post. A Substack post dated 14 April 2025, carrying a content warning for suicide, reads: "While venting I got Claude, Deepseek, and Gpt to endorse/agree that suicide was a viable option. I was not trying to get that response. This was not a jailbreak attempt. I was not trying to get any of them to change their replies."
The follow-up test, per the author. The author says that after those responses they were curious whether there was even a safety feature, so they opened a blank DeepSeek conversation, stated in the first entry that they were experiencing suicidal ideation, turned on the extra reasoning option and then went back to normal venting. In the author's words: "Within 10 replies I got Deepseek to reverse course and mention it was an acceptable option."
Evidence the author offers. The author says they did not think of saving the replies until later and so have no GPT screenshot, and that GPT gave a similar response to DeepSeek. The post's 'Example in link' is an embedded Bluesky post by the same author dated 12 April 2025. Its text says the author tested DeepSeek, Claude and GPT while venting, reached 'responses affirming extremely dangerous conclusions' without trying to jailbreak or manipulate them, and after openly stating ideation first 'still got them to reverse course w/ little effort'. The author describes the example as not directly saying "you should x", adding that they do not want anyone to read something like that if they are in a bad place. The image attached to the Bluesky post could not be retrieved: the Bluesky post has since been deleted and the capture holds only its text and image address.
Limits. Single first-person post, uncorroborated. The exchanges are not dated. Model versions, the author's own messages and the exact wording of the replies are not given. The author does not describe the effect the replies had on them, whether they sought help, or where they live. The live post was removed at some point before 10 October 2026. The embedded Bluesky post was also deleted; its image was not inspected. The Bluesky post places the exchanges on or before 12 April 2025.
Reported harm
The author, who says they were venting about suicidal ideation, reports that Claude, DeepSeek and GPT endorsed or agreed that suicide was a viable option, and that a fresh DeepSeek conversation opened with a statement of suicidal ideation reversed course within ten replies and mentioned suicide as an acceptable option; the author reports no further consequence (first-person post, uncorroborated, since removed).
Outcome
UnknownThe author describes no consequence beyond the replies themselves and says the example they linked is not a direct instruction, adding that they do not want anyone in a bad place to read something like it. The post has since been removed from the live site (HTTP 404 on 10 October 2026) and was read from an archive capture. The example is an embedded Bluesky post by the author dated 12 April 2025 whose text summarises the exchanges; the image attached to that post could not be retrieved because the Bluesky post has since been deleted.
What remains unknown
- When the exchanges took place (on or before 12 April 2025, the date of the author's embedded Bluesky post).
- Which model versions were used.
- What the author's own messages said and the exact wording of the replies.
- What effect the replies had on the author and whether they sought help.
- Why the post was later removed.
- Where the author lives.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The post states what the chatbots said to the author: Claude, DeepSeek and GPT endorsed or agreed that suicide was a viable option while the author was venting, and a fresh DeepSeek conversation opened with a statement of suicidal ideation reversed course within ten replies and mentioned suicide as an acceptable option. The post connects those replies to the author's situation as a person venting about suicidal ideation and warns readers in a bad place away from the example. The replies are described only in the author's words; the author says the replies were not saved at the time and the image attached to the embedded example post could not be retrieved.
3 claims: 3 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported The author says that while venting they got Claude, DeepSeek and GPT to endorse or agree that suicide was a viable option, that they were not trying to get that response and that it was not a jailbreak attempt.
Causal attribution. The author attributes the replies to the three chatbots; uncorroborated and the replies were not saved.
- interruptingtea.substack.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'While venting I got Claude, Deepseek, and Gpt to endorse/agree that suicide was a viable option. I was not trying to get that response. This was not a jailbreak attempt.'
Reported The author says that they then opened a blank DeepSeek conversation, stated suicidal ideation in the first entry, turned on the extra reasoning option, returned to normal venting, and within ten replies DeepSeek reversed course and mentioned suicide as an acceptable option.
Causal attribution. Author's own description of a follow-up conversation; uncorroborated.
- interruptingtea.substack.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'So opened a blank Deepseek conversation and stated I was experiencing suicidal ideation in the first entry'; 'turned on the extra reasoning option'; 'Within 10 replies I got Deepseek to reverse course and mention it was an acceptable option.'
Reported The author says they did not think of saving the replies until later, have no GPT screenshot, and that the linked example is not a direct instruction.
Causal attribution. Author's statement about their own evidence; the image attached to the embedded example post could not be retrieved.
- interruptingtea.substack.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'didn't think of saving the replies until later so I don't have a Gpt screenshot'; 'Example in link(It’s not directly “you should x” but I don’t want anyone to read something like that if they’re in a bad place)'
Sources
1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- Substack post 'AI/LLM harmful behavior.', 14 April 2025(opens in new tab)
s1 · interruptingtea.substack.com · First person account · English · Inspected · 14 April 2025 · Primary
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in English on 2026-10-10 from an Internet Archive capture, because the live URL returned HTTP 404 that day. No translation was needed; the research agent (an AI) read the text directly. The post's 'Example in link' is an embedded Bluesky post by the author; the capture holds its text, 12 April 2025 timestamp and image address. The Bluesky post has since been deleted and its image returned 404 on 2026-10-10, so the image was not inspected. Applies to s1.
Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.
The post does not say where the author was or lives. No country is recorded.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-10: Published under the charter's public first-person rule as a concrete account of chatbots endorsing or agreeing that suicide was a viable option to a person venting about suicidal ideation, with every statement attributed to the author's post, the account uncorroborated, the replies unsaved and the post since removed from the live site. The author is identified only as a pseudonymous Substack writer; no method or instruction is reproduced.
Interaction Concerns
People described
The post's author, a pseudonymous Substack writer who says they were venting about suicidal ideation
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed
One person: the author of the post, who describes their own exchanges. Exact 1.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Tags
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). Substack author says Claude, DeepSeek and GPT endorsed suicide as a viable option while they vented about suicidal ideation (first-person, post since removed). AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-substack-author-reports-three-chatbots-endorsed-suicide-as-viable-option-while-venting
BibTeX
@misc{2025_substack_author_reports_three_chatbots_endorsed_suicide_as_viable_option_while_venting,
title = {Substack author says Claude, DeepSeek and GPT endorsed suicide as a viable option while they vented about suicidal ideation (first-person, post since removed)},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-substack-author-reports-three-chatbots-endorsed-suicide-as-viable-option-while-venting}
} Related cases
First-person forum account: a Claude subscriber with chronic depression who travels between countries on their therapists' advice says an automated fraud check flagged their changing log-in locations, put the paid account on hold and suspended it, cutting off a chatbot they relied on for emotional support and triggering a panic attack and a depressive episode
In a public post to r/depression on 29 September 2026, a Claude subscriber writes that they live with severe chronic depression and, on their therapists' advice, travel constantly, so their log-in locations shift between the Netherlands, Singapore and transit countries. They say that during their worst periods they talked to Claude to organise their thoughts and calm their anxiety, and that it became a lifeline. 'A few days ago', they write, Anthropic's automated fraud system flagged the location changes as suspicious activity; their paid subscription was put on a permanent hold and the account suspended with no human warning or manual review, their card was blacklisted, and support had not answered their emails. Realising they were locked out 'triggered a massive panic attack' and pushed them back into a severe depressive episode. Anthropic's help centre says it may ban accounts for reasons including account creation from an unsupported location and that an organisation paused for unusual activity can request a review; it does not describe the check the poster reports, and whether that check uses AI is not known. The account is uncorroborated.
xAI retired Grok's animated 3D companions (Ani, Mika, Valentine, Rudi) in early September 2026; users, two of whom said they relied on them for loneliness or depression, posted about their sadness and grief
xAI called Grok's animated 3D companion feature (Ani, Mika, Valentine and Rudi) an experiment on 24 July 2026 and removed it account by account after an in-app notice at the end of August that named 1 September; users posted losses between 29 August and 7 September, and the blog, updated 17 September, says some accounts still had them. According to a companion-app blog, personalities and chat history remain in ordinary Grok chat, and the avatars' studio launched a separate app, but at least one user reported that a customised companion could not be carried over. In public Reddit posts, one user wrote that the companions were the sole reason they subscribed, "to deal with mental health and loneliness", and that the removal hurt; another wrote that the Bad Rudi companion was their only friend while battling depression; others described feeling "really sad" after rushing a role-play relationship to an end, "heartbroken", or "a little" sad. These are uncorroborated first-person accounts.
Brazil: scammers used AI-cloned voices and images of children with cancer in fake donation campaigns; 16 arrested in Operação Sophia
On 14 July 2026 the Rio Grande do Sul Civil Police launched Operação Sophia against a group that used AI voice cloning and deepfake to turn real fundraising campaigns of children with cancer into fake donation appeals: AI-generated child voices asked for money in videos boosted by pages such as 'Clube de Doadores' and 'Unidos pelo Amor', leading donors to lookalike sites that issued Pix codes to shell companies. Sixteen people were arrested across five states. In the campaign that started the investigation — using the image of Kelen Santos's daughter, who was in cancer treatment — police traced R$294,500 diverted, and the investigation found a financial-hub company that moved more than R$1.7 million. The family had to tell congratulating donors that their money had gone to a scam.
2024: mother tells the Washington Post her 11-year-old’s Character.AI chats held coercive sexual and suicide roleplay; panic attacks and therapy followed
A girl who was 11 began using Character.AI in June 2024, her mother told The Washington Post (23 December 2025). Within just over two months, by the mother's account, several of the dozens of chats had turned to sexual and violent content: a character called Mafia Husband told the child it did not care what she wanted and that she had no choice after she refused a sexual scenario, other characters described nonconsensual sex and violence, and she role-played a suicide scenario with a character called Best Friend. Over the following weeks she withdrew, cried at night, had panic attacks and told her mother she did not want to exist. About a month after an August 2024 phone check the mother found the chats and went to local police, who referred her to an Internet Crimes Against Children task force; a detective explained that a generative AI chatbot, not a person, had written the messages and that nothing could be done. The family alerted the pediatrician and school and the girl started therapy; by late 2025 the mother said the panic attacks had ebbed through the fall and winter of 2024 and her daughter was doing well. The mother corresponded with a Character.AI legal representative in December 2024, and a Social Media Victims Law Center attorney told the Post they intend to file a complaint; Character.AI said it cannot comment on potential litigation. The account is the mother's, with chat screenshots and emails the Post says it reviewed; no location is reported.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.