Skip to main content
NOPE

NOPE · AI and people

AI incidents

Reports of AI-related harm and adverse experiences affecting people’s safety, wellbeing, rights and livelihoods. Explore what happened and the evidence available.

NOPE’s core concern is when AI communicates with a person, acts on their behalf, or depicts or impersonates them. The tracker also records consequential decisions, claims and privacy harms involving AI. Each case needs a described connection between AI use and the harm, including private information recorded into or disclosed to an AI service. Each account is reviewed for publication; claims may remain uncorroborated or disputed. How we review and count cases

Explore incidents Our scope and evidence

In this selection

Published cases
1
Countries with reported events
—
Located 0 of 1 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 1 of 1 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

These figures describe the cases collected by NOPE. Coverage varies with discovery, reporting and available evidence. They do not estimate how often AI-related harm occurs.

0cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 0cases with a recorded regulatory response 0cases involving minors

Response counts currently use each case’s principal recorded outcome. Further proceedings may be described in its account.

When events happened

1 case without a known event year

Cases in this selection, counted once in their first known event year. A series may continue beyond that year. Reporting and collection dates are excluded. NOPE has searched recent events more thoroughly than earlier years, so bar heights also reflect collection effort.

No known event years in this selection.

More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

1 of 585 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownEvent location unknownClaude, DeepSeek and GPT

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.

Core concern Medium reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 10/10/2026

Cases may have several effects and sources. Mixed accounts qualify when they include a reported harm or adverse experience. People are counted within individual cases where sources support a number; we do not publish a collection-wide total of distinct people.

A source’s existence, the experience it reports and AI’s causal role are separate questions. A lawsuit records allegations unless a subsequent finding establishes them.

Methodology and corrections · Subscribe via RSS · Suggest a case or correction · Find support

Last dataset update: 10/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.