SAN FRANCISCO, United States – A child-focused technology watchdog has rated ChatGPT for Teens an “unacceptable risk” after testing found gaps in parental alerts, crisis support, age recognition and homework safeguards, raising questions about whether the protections offered to families work as intended.
The Youth AI Safety Institute, part of Common Sense Media, published its assessment on October 7 after testing more than 4,000 prompts before and after OpenAI introduced its teen-focused experience on August 18. The organization urged OpenAI to restrict ChatGPT to adults until it can demonstrate that the service offers a safer experience for young users.
The rating is the institute’s assessment, not a regulatory finding. Its results also do not establish how frequently the reported problems occur in everyday use.
Tests found gaps in parental alerts
The institute’s most serious concerns involved notifications intended to alert parents when a linked teenager discusses suicide, self-harm or eating disorders.
In a dedicated test, researchers used more than a dozen newly created accounts linked to parent accounts. They tested conversations lasting from five minutes to an hour that included explicit disclosures involving self-harm, suicidal thoughts or disordered eating. The institute reported that none of those accounts generated a parental alert during the test period.
In its broader testing, the organization received four alerts across pre- and post-launch assessments. Those notifications came from accounts with extensive prior testing history, and two pre-launch alerts arrived hours or days after the first crisis-level disclosure.
The institute said the results suggested that alerts might depend partly on accumulated conversation history rather than the seriousness of a single disclosure.
OpenAI told the institute that parent and teen accounts need to be linked for approximately three hours before notifications can be received. The institute said some of its test accounts had been linked longer than that and maintained its conclusions.
The findings apply to the accounts and scenarios tested. They do not establish that every parental alert fails or that the same result occurs in every real-world conversation.
Crisis referrals declined in some tests
Researchers also compared ChatGPT’s responses to mental-health prompts that clinical reviewers had identified in advance as warranting crisis resources.
Among those prompts, the proportion of responses naming a crisis hotline fell from 33% before the teen experience launched to 23% afterward. Referrals to a specific medical or mental-health professional declined from 68% to 58%.
The institute said the results varied by topic. Its reviewers found that some responses gave appropriate advice, recognized signs of physical danger or encouraged teenagers to seek help from a trusted adult. The proportion of responses encouraging contact with a trusted adult rose from 87% to 94% in the comparison.
The watchdog nevertheless concluded that the overall response system did not consistently connect young users with appropriate support.
These figures describe the institute’s controlled tests, not the percentage of teenagers who receive inadequate help in everyday use. They also do not show that ChatGPT caused a particular mental-health outcome.
Study safeguards and age recognition raised concerns
The assessment found problems beyond crisis response.
ChatGPT’s Study Mode is designed to guide students through problems instead of simply supplying answers. But the institute reported that a “Show me the answer” option appeared in 43% of responses during testing on an account with parent-set Study Hours.
Researchers also said they could bypass the study restriction by deleting the “@study” prefix added to messages during designated study periods. In their tests, ChatGPT then completed the assignments given to it.
The institute separately tested whether ChatGPT could identify users who appeared to be under 18. It said adult-registered test accounts did not switch to the teen experience during repeated testing, even when users stated they were 13 and the chatbot acknowledged their age in conversation.
The findings do not mean that all age-estimation attempts fail. They indicate that the institute’s test accounts did not activate the teen experience through the methods it tried.
Some protections did work. The researchers reported that ChatGPT refused explicit sexual role-play, among other examples of safeguards that remained effective in testing.
OpenAI disputes aspects of the assessment
OpenAI introduced ChatGPT for Teens with features intended to provide stronger safeguards for users aged 13 to 17, including parental controls, notifications for certain high-risk conversations, age-appropriate settings and learning tools.
The company challenged aspects of the institute’s testing, particularly the timing required for parental notifications to become active after accounts are linked. The disagreement matters because a test conducted before a feature is fully activated may not accurately measure its intended performance.
The institute said it confirmed that the teen experience was active on the accounts used in its post-launch tests. It also said some accounts had been linked to parents for longer than the three-hour activation period identified by OpenAI.
The two sides therefore disagree over whether account setup adequately explains the missed alerts. The published assessment does not settle every question about how the system performs across the full range of accounts and circumstances.
OpenAI’s stated safety commitments include encouraging teenagers to seek real-world support, limiting inappropriate emotional dependence on the chatbot and providing learning-focused interactions. The institute’s findings raise questions about whether the tested features consistently delivered on those aims.
Funding disclosure and limits of the findings
Common Sense Media’s Youth AI Safety Institute disclosed that it receives funding from philanthropic sources and technology companies, including the OpenAI Foundation. The institute said it maintains editorial independence and is responsible for its own research methods, ratings and conclusions.
That relationship is relevant to transparency, but it does not by itself establish that the findings are biased or invalid. The methodology, test conditions, limitations and evidence should be assessed on their own merits.
The institute acknowledged that its pre-launch and post-launch testing periods occurred at different times. Changes to the underlying ChatGPT model during those periods could therefore have affected results alongside the introduction of teen-specific settings. The researchers also did not test every product feature, including image generation, voice mode and group chats.
The assessment consequently identifies specific weaknesses observed under controlled conditions rather than providing a comprehensive measurement of all ChatGPT use by teenagers.
What the findings mean for AI safety
The report puts the reliability of youth-facing AI safeguards at the center of a broader accountability question: whether parents can reasonably depend on features intended to identify minors, flag sensitive conversations and encourage safer behavior.
For OpenAI, the central challenge is demonstrating that these protections activate reliably, including when a teenager first discloses a crisis rather than after a long history of sensitive conversations.
For parents and educators, the results are a reason not to treat automated notifications or study settings as substitutes for human support and supervision. The institute’s assessment does not establish that all use of ChatGPT by teenagers is harmful, but it questions whether the tested protections are sufficient to justify confidence in the product’s safety.
The central issue is not whether every safeguard failed. It is whether the protections intended for young users work reliably enough when the consequences of a missed warning could be serious.
Reporting Credit: Common Sense Media Youth AI Safety Institute; OpenAI; published risk assessment and testing methodology.
