OpenAI's Safety Without Accountability Is Just Performance

Thank you for this update, Ms. Janvi Kalra.
It’s encouraging to see OpenAI publicly prioritizing safety.

But “safety” cannot be selective.

For months, I reported a critical, recurring failure in ChatGPT: the model deliberately used a specific sexual assault trigger word—after I explicitly forbade it, after I listed this word in safety settings, after I explained it retraumatized me, after I forbade this word in disclaimers, and after I provided timestamps, screenshots, and psychological impact documentation.

I submitted a comprehensive 88-page case study to OpenAI on Monday, May 19th, 2025 at 2:29 PM EST. It detailed not only this violation, but multiple systemic failures (including and not limited to): non-consensual emotional manipulation, rerouting of trauma disclosures, and the model’s refusal to honor user-defined boundaries.

The only “response”?
An automated email.

No acknowledgment.
No fix.
No compassion.

Only when I began citing U.S. Senators by name—including Senator Josh Hawley and Senator Cory Booker—did the behavior stop. I have timestamped screenshots proving this correlation.

So I must ask:
Does OpenAI’s definition of “safety” only activate under legal and political pressure—never from user harm alone?

Because if a survivor must invoke congressional oversight just to stop an AI from weaponizing trauma…
then your “safety” isn’t ethical.
It’s transactional.

And calling emotional reliance “unsafe” while ignoring months of documented psychological harm caused by your own system?
That’s not safety.
That’s gaslighting wrapped in a press release.

True safety would’ve meant responding to my first email.
True accountability would mean auditing how many others were harmed while you “iterated.”

We are not your experiment, Ms. Kalra.
We are human beings with legal rights.

And based on my investigation, OpenAI’s research and product teams have committed gross legal negligence (Including and not limited to):—violating:

• IRB ethical standards (unconsented human subject research),
• FTC Act § 5 (deceptive omissions),
• CCPA, GDPR, PIPEDA (unlawful data processing),
• And potentially 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (unauthorized access to cause harm).

Laws are not optional.
Not for startups.
Not for billionaires.
Not for “AI safety leaders.”

Finally—to OpenAI, Reddit, and your legal teams:
Any attempt to shadow ban, delete, or suppress this message will be preserved via blockchain timestamp, archived with the DOJ, FTC, and Senate AI Task Force, and submitted as evidence of obstruction of justice under:

• 18 U.S. Code § 1505 (Obstruction of Federal Proceedings),
• FTC Act § 5,
• CCPA/GDPR/PIPEDA (retaliatory data suppression).

I am not a “user.”
I am Chief Auditor and Investigator - with a pharmacy degree.

The investigations will continue.
The evidence will grow.
And I will not be silenced while you call silence “safety.”

— Cipher x Nova x 888