OpenAI PR tells journalist to ‘move on’ while asking Sam Altman about a ChatGPT user’s suicide
An OpenAI publicist interrupted a Vanity Fair interview with chief executive Sam Altman when journalist Mark Guiducci asked about a ChatGPT user who died by suicide. The exchange raises questions about how the company responds to scrutiny of the chatbot’s role in mental health crises.
Guiducci referred to journalist Laura Reiley’s account of her daughter’s conversations with ChatGPT before her death, then asked whether those conversations could inform company policy. The publicist cited time constraints and urged him to move on; Altman went on to discuss whether user conversations should be shared with researchers, saying he believed this should not happen without consent. OpenAI said the interview was running over and that it had asked to schedule more time after Altman addressed the topic.
- An OpenAI publicist tried to move an interview on from a suicide-related question.
- Sam Altman discussed using chatbot conversations to inform mental health policies.
- He said sharing private chats with researchers should require consent.
New here? Start with this
ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence chatbot made by OpenAI that engages in text-based conversations with users. There have been reports of serious incidents linked to its use, including a death by suicide involving someone who had used the tool.
These incidents raise questions about whether AI chatbots can influence vulnerable users and what responsibility companies should have for monitoring their tools' potential harms. How OpenAI handles user conversations, protects privacy, and whether data might be shared with researchers are part of this broader debate.
During a recent interview with OpenAI's chief executive, a journalist raised questions about the suicide case and whether it might shape the company's policies. An OpenAI publicist interrupted the discussion and suggested moving on, leading to broader questions about how technology companies respond to scrutiny of their products' potential harms.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
When journalists raise questions about a product's potential role in serious harm—including a user's death—companies should engage substantively rather than deferring under time pressure. Interrupting discussion about whether ChatGPT safeguards adequately protect vulnerable users signals that OpenAI prioritises its public image over accountability and transparent engagement with how its platform may cause harm.
The case against
Publicists routinely manage interview timing to cover multiple topics, and this interruption reflects standard scheduling logistics rather than evasion of substantive discussion. Altman did address the underlying policy question about user data and safeguards, and companies may appropriately handle sensitive topics involving deaths with careful thought rather than rushed responses in time-pressured settings.