It'd be really interesting to ask them this question during the court case. I mean at some point they had to make a willful decision how to process these things and how to handle abuse. Could have been anything from an automated system to strike users like Youtube does and limit or block their accounts after 5 attempts... or 10... or 100... Anything would have helped here. Or pay for a team of human content moderators like social media companies do (Facebook...). But seems they went with just letting it slide. I think for once this means they can't complain now, how their TOS were violated, because they already accepted that's how it goes. And moreover it could be willful neglect once a company prioritizes profit over human life and they just don't address dangerous aspects of their products, which could easily(?) be addressed... And I don't see how that'd be impossible for them. They're an AI company so surely they must be able to come up with an automated system like Google has in place for Youtube. And the sweat-shops in Africa which do content moderation for Facebook aren't that pricey compared to the pile of money OpenAI has available or pays as salary to a single AI engineer?!