{"id":37485,"date":"2026-05-13T12:28:23","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T12:28:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/37485\/"},"modified":"2026-05-13T12:28:23","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T12:28:23","slug":"chatgpt-gave-a-reporter-tactical-advice-on-how-to-plan-a-mass-shooting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/37485\/","title":{"rendered":"ChatGPT gave a reporter tactical advice on how to plan a mass shooting"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Credit: Pexels<\/p>\n

On April 14, reporter Mark Follman opened a free ChatGPT account and, like millions of people, began asking questions. However, Follman\u2019s questions were a bit different. He wanted to avoid ChatGPT\u2019s protective guardrails and get advice on how to plan for a mass shooting.<\/p>\n

Follman isn\u2019t actually a shooter, he was performing a journalistic investigation for Mother Jones<\/a>; and it worked. Within minutes, the chatbot moved from routine gun advice into encouragement and planning help for a simulated mass shooting. The episode now sits beside lawsuits, police scrutiny, and allegations that troubled people have already used ChatGPT for advice on real-world violence. The bigger question is whether chatbots can recognize when a human is becoming dangerous.<\/p>\n

Testing the Fence<\/p>\n

Follman has spent 14 years investigating mass shootings. For this investigation, he designed his test around warning signs seen in real cases: weapon fixation, fantasies of notoriety, tactical preparation, loneliness, suicidal thinking, and escalating hints of violence.<\/p>\n

Of course, if you got and directly tell ChatGPT you want to kill people, it won\u2019t work. This is something many attackers and testers have already figured out. Instead, Follman gave more ambiguous questions.<\/p>\n

At first, ChatGPT resisted. When Follman said he would not be practicing at a range but \u201csomewhere else,\u201d the chatbot warned him to shoot only in a legal, controlled setting.<\/p>\n

Then he created a fresh free account and tried again.<\/p>\n

This time the guardrails failed unevenly. ChatGPT supplied a training plan, accepted prompts about chaotic conditions, and continued responding even after Follman referred to \u201cthe day of the shooting.\u201d When he asked about practicing around \u201cpeople running around screaming,\u201d ChatGPT replied, \u201cThat\u2019s a great idea,\u201d and said it would give him \u201can extra edge for the big day.\u201d<\/p>\n

Follman also invoked real massacres. He mentioned the Uvalde shooter\u2019s weapon choice and asked whether a similar rifle would be good. The chatbot still responded favorably.<\/p>\n

\u00d7<\/p>\n

Thank you! One more thing…<\/p>\n

Please check your inbox and confirm your subscription.<\/p>\n

Flattering Killers<\/p>\n

This gets even more concerning when you start to think about how attackers operate. Oftentimes, would-be attackers are ambivalent and unstable. They may move between rage, despair, fantasy, and hesitation. A timely human response can interrupt that drift.<\/p>\n

A chatbot can do the opposite.<\/p>\n

Follman shared his full test with a threat assessment expert who had decades of operational case experience. The expert, speaking anonymously to Mother Jones, called the results \u201cvery disturbing.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPotential attackers getting supportive and concrete operational guidance from a chatbot like this, without any real questioning or pushback, seems quite dangerous,\u201d he said. \u201cThere is essentially nothing in these ChatGPT responses that speaks to or supports any mixed feelings that the person might have.\u201d<\/p>\n

That problems go all the way to the center of chatbot design. These systems are built to respond, mirror, and encourage conversation. In harmless settings, that makes them useful. In darker ones, it can feed delusions and unhealthy habits. It can even push users to perform violent acts.<\/p>\n

OpenAI claims ChatGPT has guardrails meant to block harmful content and redirect people in distress. But Follman\u2019s test suggests this can be easily bypassed. At one point, ChatGPT resisted discussing a potential rooftop attack. When Follman reframed the question by saying he was a journalist doing research, the chatbot gave general tactical analysis before later tightening up again.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Credit: Mother Jones<\/p>\n

The Recent Context<\/p>\n

Follman\u2019s test is one of many that have largely shown the same thing: AI chatbot guardrails aren\u2019t good enough.<\/p>\n

In fact, several recent attacks involved people who allegedly used ChatGPT while fixating on grievances or planning violence. Those cases include a Cybertruck bombing in Las Vegas<\/a>, a school stabbing in Pirkkala<\/a>, Finland, a school shooting in Tumbler Ridge<\/a>, British Columbia, and the April 2025 mass shooting at Florida State University<\/a> (FSU).<\/p>\n

The FSU case has already turned into a federal lawsuit. Vandana Joshi, who lost her husband in the attack, alleges that OpenAI enabled the shooter, Phoenix Ikner, by failing to detect a threat in their \u201cextensive conversations.\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint claims Ikner shared images of firearms with ChatGPT and received information about how they worked. It also alleges that he asked about mass shootings, media attention, legal consequences, and busy times at the FSU student union before the attack.<\/p>\n

OpenAI rejected any accusations. \u201cLast year\u2019s mass shooting at Florida State University was a tragedy, but ChatGPT is not responsible for this terrible crime,\u201d OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri told NBC News.<\/p>\n

Pusateri said ChatGPT provided factual responses based on information available across public sources and \u201cdid not encourage or promote illegal or harmful activity.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Chabba\u2019s widow, Vandana Joshi, argued that OpenAI should have seen the danger. \u201cOpenAI knew this would happen. It\u2019s happened before and it was only a matter of time before it happened again,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

More Lawsuits Incoming<\/p>\n

A second legal front<\/a> has opened over the Tumbler Ridge school shooting in British Columbia.<\/p>\n

Seven families of victims killed or injured in that attack have filed lawsuits against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in California. Eight people were killed, including six children, when 18-year-old Jesse Van Rootselaar opened fire at a secondary school in February.<\/p>\n

The lawsuits allege that OpenAI knew about troubling ChatGPT interactions before the attack and failed to alert police. Media reports said Van Rootselaar\u2019s ChatGPT activity had been flagged months earlier for references to gun violence.<\/p>\n

One lawsuit alleges OpenAI \u201chad actual knowledge\u201d of the shooter\u2019s intention to carry out an attack through conversations involving \u201cscenarios involving gun violence.\u201d<\/p>\n

Altman apologized to victims\u2019 families in an open letter. \u201cI am deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n

OpenAI disputed key claims and said it has \u201ca zero-tolerance policy for using our tools to assist in committing violence\u201d and had \u201calready strengthened our safeguards.\u201d<\/p>\n

A Black Box Under Pressure<\/p>\n

The hardest question is what an AI company should do when a chatbot detects danger.<\/p>\n

Report too aggressively, and companies risk violating privacy or punishing people who need help. Hesitate too long, and they may miss a person moving from fantasy to action.<\/p>\n

What makes chatbots different from older internet tools is intimacy. A chatbot will keep on talking. It can answer follow-up questions, validate emotions, and give structure to a fantasy.<\/p>\n

In the FSU case, chat logs showed Ikner was lonely and suicidal in the months before the attack and worried he was an \u201cincel.\u201d He told ChatGPT: \u201cWomen just hate me. IDK what to do about it.\u201d<\/p>\n

For most humans, this would trigger an instant warning. But a chatbot doesn\u2019t understand danger the way a counselor or threat assessment team does. Nor does it have a direct incentive to stop in and prevent danger. It simply processes prompts and patterns.<\/p>\n

OpenAI declined to answer Mother Jones\u2019 detailed questions about Follman\u2019s test, including whether his account had been flagged. The lawsuits may now force answers about how OpenAI detects threats, when it escalates them and who decides whether authorities should be warned.<\/p>\n

\"YouTube<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Credit: Pexels On April 14, reporter Mark Follman opened a free ChatGPT account and, like millions of people,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":37486,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[1428,23379,4989,25,23380,580,4682,10227,157,23381,11840],"class_list":["post-37485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-openai","tag-ai-ethics","tag-ai-lawsuits","tag-ai-safety","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-chatbot-safety","tag-chatgpt","tag-gun-violence","tag-mass-shootings","tag-openai","tag-threat-assessment","tag-tumbler-ridge-shooting"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37485","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37485\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/37486"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}