What just happened? Another incident has taken place that illustrates the need to be careful what you tell AI. A Florida woman is facing felony charges after she used Claude as a diary and allegedly wrote that she planned to “shoot up” the Sheriff’s office. After a human reviewer examined the statements, they were reported to police.

According to the arrest report, Carli Michelle Heller, of Bonita Springs, Florida, wrote on September 26 that she would attack the Sheriff’s office. She later said that she uses Anthropic’s chatbot like a “diary.”

Claude’s safety systems flagged the entry and it was escalated to a human reviewer. After deciding it was a credible threat, the reviewer reported it to law enforcement.

The company says it may share user information in limited emergencies if it believes disclosure is necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.

Deputies identified Heller and visited her home. She was detained without incident before an LCSO intelligence detective took over the investigation.

Heller faces a charge of making a written threat of violence under Florida law. Florida Statute 836.10 makes it a second-degree felony to send, post, or transmit a written or electronic record threatening to kill or injure someone, carry out a mass shooting, or commit an act of terrorism. The communication must be made in a manner in which another person may view it.

Anthropic isn’t going to be taking any chances when it comes to anything it deems a potential threat. Last month, it was reported that OpenAI and Sam Altman are being sued by British Columbia over claims that the company could have prevented a mass shooting in the Canadian province.

The shooter, eighteen-year-old former pupil Jesse Van ⁠Rootselaar, had previously been flagged by OpenAI’s safety team for her conversations about gun violence, but OpenAI never alerted police because the conversations did not meet the threshold for legal referral.

In June, Florida also sued OpenAI and Altman, alleging that ChatGPT had contributed to real-world harms, including the 2025 Florida State University shooting.

The latest incident is another reminder to think before you enter something into a chatbot that could get you into trouble. It’s certainly not a private diary whose contents are for your eyes only.

Reports last month revealed that human contractors reviewing Microsoft Copilot’s image editor can see users’ prompts, uploaded photos and AI-generated edits. Documents show that some of those assignments contain sexual, disturbing or potentially illegal material, though the reviewers are not there to flag the content – only to assess whether the output is accurate.

  • CarrotsHaveEars@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    This. The law says, “to send, post, or transmit a written or electronic record.” How is talking to AI satisfying the threshold of sending, posting, or transmitting?

    • Greyghoster@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      My assumption was that she never intended that someone else would read it therefore wasn’t transmitting it for that purpose. She was technically ill informed. Once that’s out of the way then it’ll be should the diary entry be considered in the context of the Minority Report? People are usually encouraged to write down negative thoughts and feelings to get them out and hopefully float away.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      How would this conversation NOT classify as “send[ing] a[n] electronic record”? There’s very literally no interpretation that would escape it… this was an online chat bot, that only gets messages (record) that you send over the internet (electronic).

      • YeahToast@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Not reading into the law… because well. I’m lazy. My query would be if transmitting needs to be to a receiving party (i. e. Threat directly to the police station, or a public group /person that would receive the threat). If this person was using it as a diary, it may warrant that there was never any intention for the threat to be publicized and thus not acted on? Dunno. We’re both probably dumber for writing and reading my comment

      • SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Because the context is likey to be “… to a third party” of a presumably human kind. Human to clanker (which then gets eavesdropped) ought not to qualify.

        Ofc letter of law vs spirit of law, variation in jurisdictions, legal interpretation, YMMV etc etc