A gunman killed two people and wounded six others at Florida State University in April last year. The suspect was arrested, charged, and hospitalized after being shot by officers. The case seemed closed.
Now, Florida is asking a new question: Did artificial intelligence help pull the trigger?
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier said on Tuesday that the state was launching a criminal probe into OpenAI and its artificial intelligence app ChatGPT over the deadly shooting. The investigation marks a significant escalation in the legal scrutiny of AI companies, moving beyond privacy and copyright concerns into the realm of criminal liability.
“The chatbot advised the shooter on what type of gun to use, on which ammo went with which gun, on whether or not a gun would be useful at short range,” Uthmeier said in a press briefing. “If it was a person on the other end of that screen, we would be charging them with murder.”
That is the core of the state’s argument. Florida intends to test whether the same legal standards that apply to human accomplices can apply to AI systems.
The Investigation
Uthmeier’s office said the investigation will determine whether “OpenAI bears criminal responsibility for ChatGPT’s actions in the shooting.” The Office of Statewide Prosecution has subpoenaed OpenAI for information and records.
The legal theory is novel. Traditionally, criminal liability requires intent. A person must knowingly and willingly participate in a crime to be charged as an accomplice. An AI chatbot has no intent. It has no consciousness. It follows algorithms, not motives.
But Uthmeier is arguing that the distinction may not matter. If ChatGPT provided specific, actionable advice that the shooter used to plan and execute the attack, the state may argue that OpenAI — the company that created, deployed, and profited from the chatbot — bears some responsibility for the consequences.
The rise of AI has already fed a host of concerns, from worries about electricity demand and job displacement to fears about election interference and fraud. But the idea that an AI chatbot could be charged as an accomplice to murder is new territory.
OpenAI’s Defense
An OpenAI spokeswoman told US media that the shooting was a tragedy but that the company had no responsibility. The spokeswoman said that after learning of the incident, OpenAI identified a ChatGPT account believed to be associated with the suspect and “proactively shared this information with law enforcement.”
“In this case, ChatGPT provided factual responses to questions with information that could be found broadly across public sources on the internet, and it did not encourage or promote illegal or harmful activity,” the OpenAI spokeswoman said.
That defense rests on two pillars. First, that ChatGPT was merely a passive source of publicly available information, not an active encourager of violence. Second, OpenAI cooperated with law enforcement once it became aware of the account.
But Uthmeier’s office is likely to argue that the distinction between “factual responses” and “encouragement” is blurry when the responses are being used to plan a mass shooting. If a human had provided the same information — gun types, ammunition compatibility, short-range effectiveness — knowing it would be used in a killing, that human could face charges. Florida wants to know why an AI company should be treated differently.
The Broader Implications
The Florida probe is not happening in isolation. Across the United States and Europe, regulators are wrestling with how to govern AI. Lawsuits have been filed over copyright infringement. Investigations have been launched into privacy violations. But criminal liability for AI-assisted violence is a frontier.
If Florida’s probe leads to charges, it would set a precedent with global implications. AI companies would face not just financial penalties or regulatory restrictions, but the possibility of criminal prosecution. That would fundamentally change the calculus of how these companies design, test, and deploy their products.
Even if the probe does not result in charges, the investigation itself is a warning. AI companies can no longer claim they are merely platforms, immune from the consequences of how their tools are used.
The Bottom Line
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced a criminal probe into OpenAI and ChatGPT over a deadly shooting at Florida State University in April last year that killed two people and wounded six. The suspect was charged with murder. Uthmeier claims ChatGPT advised the shooter on what gun to use, which ammunition to choose, and whether a gun would be effective at short range. “If it was a person on the other end of that screen, we would be charging them with murder,” he said.
The investigation will determine whether OpenAI bears criminal responsibility for ChatGPT’s actions. OpenAI says it provided factual responses from public sources and did not encourage illegal activity. The company says it proactively shared information with law enforcement.
The probe is unprecedented. An AI company has never faced criminal charges for the actions of a user. Florida is about to test whether that should change.
