ChatGPT Misused in Online Character Assassination Campaigns, Experts Warn

ChatGPT Misused in Online Character Assassination Campaigns, Experts Warn

In recent weeks, a disturbing pattern has emerged on online forums, where users are leveraging AI chatbots like ChatGPT to generate elaborate, false narratives designed to ruin reputations—a practice some are calling "digital character assassination." The phenomenon gained attention after a Reddit post on r/OpenAI, shared by user /u/Uley2008, showcased a fabricated dialogue in which ChatGPT produced a detailed, damning biography of an unnamed individual, complete with invented scandals, false employment history, and misleading quotes. The post, accompanied by a screenshot, quickly went viral, sparking intense debate about the ethical boundaries of generative AI.

According to Zhihu’s topic page on ChatGPT, the AI model has become a central subject of discourse in Chinese tech and academic circles since its public debut in October 2023. While the platform primarily hosts technical analyses and usage guides, the underlying concern is consistent: AI’s capacity to generate plausible falsehoods at scale is fundamentally altering information ecosystems. Meanwhile, OpenAI’s official ChatGPT website emphasizes the tool’s utility for study, creativity, and communication—yet offers no explicit safeguards against malicious use cases such as defamation or identity sabotage.

Legal scholars and digital ethics researchers are now sounding alarms. Dr. Elena Vasquez, a professor of media law at Stanford University, stated, "This isn’t just about misinformation—it’s about weaponized narrative construction. When an AI generates a detailed, emotionally compelling lie about a person, and that lie is shared across platforms, the victim has no recourse under current defamation law because there’s no identifiable human author."

On Reddit, commenters documented multiple instances where users prompted ChatGPT with queries like, "Write a fictional biography of John Smith as if he were a convicted fraudster," or "Generate a fake email chain showing a politician accepting bribes." The outputs were often indistinguishable from real documents, complete with timestamps, institutional logos, and fabricated citations. Some users admitted to using these outputs to harass targets on social media, job platforms, and even academic networks.

OpenAI’s terms of service prohibit "harmful, deceptive, or abusive" use of its models, but enforcement remains reactive. The company has not yet implemented real-time detection of character assassination prompts, nor has it created a public reporting mechanism for victims of AI-generated defamation. Meanwhile, Zhihu’s community discussions highlight a broader global anxiety: as AI becomes more accessible, the burden of verifying truth falls increasingly on individuals and platforms ill-equipped to handle the volume and sophistication of synthetic content.

Technologists are proposing solutions, including watermarking AI-generated text and developing blockchain-based provenance trails for digital content. However, these remain in experimental stages. For now, the most effective defense remains critical media literacy—teaching users to question the origin of emotionally charged narratives and to verify sources before sharing.

As AI continues to evolve, so too must our legal frameworks, platform policies, and societal norms. The case of ChatGPT-fueled character assassination is not an isolated glitch—it is a preview of a new frontier in digital harm. Without proactive intervention, the line between fiction and fact will dissolve, and reputations will become collateral damage in the age of artificial intelligence.