Artificial Intelligence
Character AI sued following teen suicide

|
| The last person 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III spoke to before he shot himself wasn’t a person at all. | ||
| It was an AI chatbot that, in the last months of his life, had become his closest companion. | ||
| Sewell was using Character AI, one of the most popular personal AI platforms out there. The basic pitch is that users can design and interact with “characters,” powered by large language models (LLMs) and intended to mirror, for instance, famous characters from film and book franchises. | ||
| In this case, Sewell was speaking with Daenerys Targaryen (or Dany), one of the leads from Game of Thrones. According to a New York Times report, Sewell knew that Dany’s responses weren’t real, but he developed an emotional attachment to the bot, anyway. | ||
| One of their last conversations, according to the Times, went like this: | ||
|
||
| On the night he died, Sewell told the chatbot he loved her and would come home to her soon. | ||
|
||
| This is not the first time chatbots have been involved in suicide. | ||
| In 2023, a Belgian man died by suicide — similar to Sewell — following weeks of increasing isolation as he grew closer to a Chai chatbot, which then encouraged him to end his life. | ||
| Megan Garcia, Sewell’s mother, hopes it will be the last time. She filed a lawsuit against Character AI, its founders and parent company Google on Wednesday, accusing them of knowingly designing and marketing an anthropomorphized, “predatory” chatbot that caused the death of her son. | ||
| “A dangerous AI chatbot app marketed to children abused and preyed on my son, manipulating him into taking his own life,” Garcia said in a statement. “Our family has been devastated by this tragedy, but I’m speaking out to warn families of the dangers of deceptive, addictive AI technology and demand accountability from Character.AI, its founders and Google.” | ||
| The lawsuit — which you can read here — accuses the company of “anthropomorphizing by design.” This is something we’ve talked about a lot, here; the majority of chatbots out there are very blatantly designed to make users think they’re, at least, human-like. They use personal pronouns and are designed to appear to think before responding. | ||
| While these may be minor examples, they build a foundation for people, especially children, to misapply human attributes to unfeeling, unthinking algorithms. This was termed the “Eliza effect” in the 1960s. | ||
|
||
| Garcia is suing for several counts of liability, negligence and the intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other things. | ||
| Character at the same time published a blog responding to the tragedy, saying that it has added new safety features. These include revised disclaimers on every chat that the chatbot isn’t a real person, in addition to popups with mental health resources in response to certain phrases. | ||
| In a statement, Character AI said it was “heartbroken” by Sewell’s death, and directed me to their blog post. | ||
| Google did not respond to a request for comment. | ||
|
||
| The suit does not claim that the chatbot encouraged Sewell to commit suicide. I view it more so as a reckoning with the anthropomorphized chatbots that have been born of an era of unregulated social media, and that are further incentivized for user engagement at any cost. | ||
| There were other factors at play here — for instance, Sewell’s mental health issues and his access to a gun — but the harm that can be caused by a misimpression of what AI actually is seems very clear, especially for young kids. This is a good example of what researchers mean when they emphasize the presence of active harms, as opposed to hypothetical risks. | ||
|
||
| “Artificial intimacy programs use the same large language models as the generative AI programs that help us create business plans and find the best restaurants in Tulsa. They scrape the internet so that the next thing they say stands the greatest chance of pleasing their user.” | ||
| We are witnessing and grappling with a very raw crisis of humanity. Smartphones and social media set the stage. | ||
| More technology is not the cure. |
Alberta
Schools should go back to basics to mitigate effects of AI
From the Fraser Institute
Odds are, you can’t tell whether this sentence was written by AI. Schools across Canada face the same problem. And happily, some are finding simple solutions.
Manitoba’s Division Scolaire Franco-Manitobaine recently issued new guidelines for teachers, to only assign optional homework and reading in grades Kindergarten to six, and limit homework in grades seven to 12. The reason? The proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots such as ChatGPT make it very difficult for teachers, juggling a heavy workload, to discern genuine student work from AI-generated text. In fact, according to Division superintendent Alain Laberge, “Most of the [after-school assignment] submissions, we find, are coming from AI, to be quite honest.”
This problem isn’t limited to Manitoba, of course.
Two provincial doors down, in Alberta, new data analysis revealed that high school report card grades are rising while scores on provincewide assessments are not—particularly since 2022, the year ChatGPT was released. Report cards account for take-home work, while standardized tests are written in person, in the presence of teaching staff.
Specifically, from 2016 to 2019, the average standardized test score in Alberta across a range of subjects was 64 while the report card grade was 73.3—or 9.3 percentage points higher). From 2022 and 2024, the gap increased to 12.5 percentage points. (Data for 2020 and 2021 are unavailable due to COVID school closures.)
In lieu of take-home work, the Division Scolaire Franco-Manitobaine recommends nightly reading for students, which is a great idea. Having students read nightly doesn’t cost schools a dime but it’s strongly associated with improving academic outcomes.
According to a Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) analysis of 174,000 student scores across 32 countries, the connection between daily reading and literacy was “moderately strong and meaningful,” and reading engagement affects reading achievement more than the socioeconomic status, gender or family structure of students.
All of this points to an undeniable shift in education—that is, teachers are losing a once-valuable tool (homework) and shifting more work back into the classroom. And while new technologies will continue to change the education landscape in heretofore unknown ways, one time-tested winning strategy is to go back to basics.
And some of “the basics” have slipped rapidly away. Some college students in elite universities arrive on campus never having read an entire book. Many university professors bemoan the newfound inability of students to write essays or deconstruct basic story components. Canada’s average PISA scores—a test of 15-year-olds in math, reading and science—have plummeted. In math, student test scores have dropped 35 points—the PISA equivalent of nearly two years of lost learning—in the last two decades. In reading, students have fallen about one year behind while science scores dropped moderately.
The decline in Canadian student achievement predates the widespread access of generative AI, but AI complicates the problem. Again, the solution needn’t be costly or complicated. There’s a reason why many tech CEOs famously send their children to screen-free schools. If technology is too tempting, in or outside of class, students should write with a pencil and paper. If ChatGPT is too hard to detect (and we know it is, because even AI often can’t accurately detect AI), in-class essays and assignments make sense.
And crucially, standardized tests provide the most reliable equitable measure of student progress, and if properly monitored, they’re AI-proof. Yet standardized testing is on the wane in Canada, thanks to long-standing attacks from teacher unions and other opponents, and despite broad support from parents. Now more than ever, parents and educators require reliable data to access the ability of students. Standardized testing varies widely among the provinces, but parents in every province should demand a strong standardized testing regime.
AI may be here to stay and it may play a large role in the future of education. But if schools deprive students of the ability to read books, structure clear sentences, correspond organically with other humans and complete their own work, they will do students no favours. The best way to ensure kids are “future ready”—to borrow a phrase oft-used to justify seesawing educational tech trends—is to school them in the basics.
Artificial Intelligence
AI is accelerating the porn crisis as kids create, consume explicit deepfake images of classmates
From LifeSiteNews
“Ten years ago it was sexting and nudes causing havoc in classrooms,” writes Sally Weale in a chilling new report at the Guardian. “Today, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have made it child’s play to generate deepfake nude images or videos, featuring what appear to be your friends, your classmates, even your teachers. This may involve removing clothes, getting an image to move suggestively or pasting someone’s head on to a pornographic image.”
I have been covering the rise of the next horrific manifestation of our collective porn crisis here at LifeSiteNews since 2019, when I warned that the rise of “deepfakes” would inevitably result in people making artificial pornography of their peers. Just a few years later, I reported on stories of middle-schoolers making deepfake pornography of kids they attended class with; last year, I reported on the rise of “nudify” apps that can digitally undress people in photographs, and the trauma, bullying, and inevitable sexual blackmail that has resulted.
The Guardian report reveals how swiftly this crisis is escalating. One teacher described an incident in which a teenage boy took out his phone, chose a social media image of a girl from a neighboring school, and used the “nudify” app to digitally remove her clothes. The teacher was shocked to see that the boy wasn’t even hiding his actions, because he didn’t see what he was doing as shocking, or even shameful. “It worries me that it’s so normalized,” she said. Other students reported the boy, his parents were contacted, and the police were called. The victimized girl was not even told.
The crisis is global. “In Spain last year, 15 boys in the south-western region of Extremadura were sentenced to a year’s probation after being convicted of using AI to produce fake naked images of their female schoolmates, which they shared on WhatsApp groups,” Weale writes. “About 20 girls were affected, most of them aged 14, while the youngest was 11.”
A similar situation unfolded in Australia, where 50 high school students had deepfake images distributed; in the United States, 30 female students in New Jersey discovered that “pornographic images of them had been shared among their male classmates on Snapchat.”
The mother of one student in Australia said that “her daughter was so horrified by the sexually explicit images that she vomited.” In the United Kingdom, the problem has exploded overnight:
A new poll of 4,300 secondary school teachers in England, carried out by Teacher Tapp on behalf of the Guardian, found that about one in 10 were aware of students at their school creating “deepfake, sexually explicit videos” in the last academic year. Three-quarters of these incidents involved children aged 14 or younger, while one in 10 incidents involved 11-year-olds, and 3% were younger still, illustrating just how easy the technology is to access and use. Among participating teachers, 7% said they were aware of a single incident, and 1% said it had happened twice, while a similar proportion said it had happened three times or more in the last academic year. Earlier this year, a Girlguiding survey found that one in four respondents aged 13 to 18 had seen a sexually explicit deepfake image of a celebrity, a friend, a teacher or themselves.
Predictably, teachers are also being targeted. Girls and women are left shattered by this victimization. Laura Bates, author of The New Age of Sexism: How the AI Revolution Is Reinventing Misogyny, writes: “It feels like someone has taken you and done something to you and there is nothing you can do about it. Watching a video of yourself being violated without your consent is an almost out-of-body experience.” Boys, meanwhile, are engaging in criminal behavior often without even knowing it. In the world they have grown up in, pornography is normal – and this is merely the next step.
The experts that Weale interviews are, as usual, at a loss of what can be done about this crisis. They emphasize education, while admitting that this is the equivalent of taking a water pistol to a raging forest fire. They are skeptical that guidelines or bans around technology at school will help. Understandably, educators are demoralized and even despairing. Pornography and sexting have already transformed schools. Deepfake pornography is now making an already ugly crisis far more personal, and there is no indication that the problem can be stopped without dramatic action.
The only genuine solution was put forward by Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England. She has advocated that “nudification apps such as ClothOff” be simply banned. “Children have told me they are frightened by the very idea of this technology even being available, let alone used,” de Souza stated. De Souza is correct. The solution to the porn crisis is both tremendously difficult, but extraordinarily simple: we must simply make this content – and these apps – illegal.
The good news is that the first step in this direction has already been taken in the U.K. On November 3, the government tabled the Crime and Policing Bill in Parliament. It includes an amendment criminalizing pornography featuring strangulation or suffocation – usually referred to as “choking” – with legal requirements for tech platforms to block this content from U.K. users.
This is the first time a genre of pornography has been criminalized on the basis that even if it is consensual, it genuinely harms society. That is an encouraging precedent, because it applies to virtually all hardcore pornography – and certainly to the “nudification” apps that are set to make middle school a hyper-sexualized hell for women and girls.
The porn industry is destroying society. We must destroy it first.
-
COVID-191 day agoTrump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta introducing three “all-season resort areas” to provide more summer activities in Alberta’s mountain parks
-
Agriculture2 days agoGrowing Alberta’s fresh food future
-
International1 day agoTrump admin wants to help Canadian woman rethink euthanasia, Glenn Beck says
-
Alberta1 day agoThe case for expanding Canada’s energy exports
-
Business2 days agoStorm clouds of uncertainty as BC courts deal another blow to industry and investment
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoOttawa’s New Hate Law Goes Too Far
-
Business1 day agoFuelled by federalism—America’s economically freest states come out on top




