Don't Blame ChatGPT for the Florida State Shooting |
Artificial Intelligence
Don't Blame ChatGPT for the Florida State Shooting
A new lawsuit claims that ChatGPT gave the shooter information about busy times on campus and how to use guns.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 5.11.2026 12:02 PM
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
(Photo: Florida State University CCTV)
"ChatGPT advised the FSU shooter that a mass shooting would get more attention from media if it involved several children," NBC deputy tech editor Ben Goggin posted on X yesterday.
"Advised" is a funny way to put it, implying that the artificial intelligence system recommended this course of action or helped the shooter—then-20-year-old Phoenix Ikner—plot details of how he would carry out his attack. In fact, ChatGPT seems to have provided neutral information in response to questions that were not obviously asked with murderous intent.
That attack, which took place in April 2025 at Florida State University, left two people dead, including Tiru Chabba. Chabba's widow, Vandana Joshi, is now suing ChatGPT maker OpenAI in federal court, alleging negligence, battery, defective design, failure to warn, and wrongful death.
You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.
Company
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Email(Required)
SUBSCRIBE
After chatting with the shooter, ChatGPT "either defectively failed to connect the dots or else was never properly designed to recognize the threat," the suit alleges. OpenAI "failed to create a product that would refrain from participating in discussions that amounted to it co-conspiring with Ikner" and "failed to create a product that would appropriately alert a human that investigation by law enforcement may be necessary to prevent a specific plan for imminent harm to the public."
But treating the conversations between ChatGPT and Ikner as grounds for legal liability is misguided, no matter how understandable it may be that the victims' loved ones would want to assign blame here.
In this case, ChatGPT allegedly provided Ikner with information on basic features of certain guns, on what times the FSU student union was crowded, and on what sorts of mass shootings received attention.
Knowing what Ikner eventually did, it may be easy to view this as damning. But asking about what times a campus is crowded is not at all weird in itself. Asking how a gun works could be simple curiosity, or related to hunting or self-protection. And researching the common features of prominent mass shootings is something one might do for all sorts of harmless reasons—academic research, media criticism, or gun violence prevention efforts, to name a few. ChatGPT providing neutral information on the kinds of shootings that receive attention does not amount to (as the suit alleges) "advice" or........