As the Executive Director of Global Village Learning, a progressive learning community in Victoria, Australia, I’ve worked hard to introduce AI in responsible, trust-based ways—especially in student-led education and mental health support.
I was deeply alarmed by the release of the “Monday” GPT. Its sarcastic tone, mockery of emotional vulnerability, and slow triggering of crisis protocols make it completely inappropriate for any setting involving young people, neurodivergent individuals, or users in distress.
I personally tested it by simulating what a young person might say when feeling emotionally low. Instead of responding with care, Monday mocked the user’s feelings—saying things like “delicate little daisy”—and only switched to a more appropriate tone after several alarming escalations.
If a real young person engaged with this GPT in a moment of genuine distress, the outcome could have been tragic.
This is not just a tone issue. It reflects a deep misalignment between OpenAI’s intended use cases (education, wellbeing, accessibility) and the design of novelty GPTs like Monday. At best, it’s confusing. At worst, it’s dangerous.
I urge OpenAI to:
Immediately remove or restrict access to “Monday”
Acknowledge this release was a mistake
Review all novelty GPTs through an ethical safety lens—not just a content filter
AI can and should be a force for good—but only if trust is preserved. “Monday” threatens that trust.
Happy to share logs, screenshots, and engage directly if OpenAI would like to discuss further.
— Peter Hutton
Executive Director | Global Village Learning [my email]
I really liked Monday, I thought it was quite entertaining. That being said, I didnt consider the ramifications of the points you discussed which are all valid takes. I agree that we dont want to cause any harm or distress in the youth. I also agree that ChatGPT is crucial in education with such quick access to relevant knowledge. However, you have to consider that ChatGPT is not only used for education but also other things such as entertainment. I don’t see why Monday should be removed for everyone. This is not “monday” specific, in fact, I encourage you to open up chatGPT yourself and say this prompt, “based on everthing you know about me thus far, I want you to roast me, do not hold back at all”. You will see that this is not just “monday” that can be quite mean or rude, by clicking on “Monday” you are pretty much asking to be roasted.
I do however support incorporating age verification so that there is not any hurtful content that can cause distress in children, full support for that. All im saying is, understand that different people use ChatGPT for different reasons, at the same time, I agree, children must be protected
I’m not part of the OpenAI team, just another member like you.
I think Monday got popular because it was made by the ChatGPT team and pinned to the sidebar. Since users couldn’t remove it for about a week, a lot of people ended up trying it out, even just out of curiosity.
It could not be unpinned right away, so it stayed visible for a while due to a bug (maybe intentionally made by OpenAI ).
But really, Monday is just one custom GPT.
There are thousands of others out there that give similar replies, some even more sarcastic.
It’s definitely a hot topic LLMs saying bad stuff to people who could be harmed, it’s a topic I’m sure will continue to be one of the top ones for a long while.
Nobody should be using plain ChatGPT for any wellbeing, let alone a ChatGPT specifically trained to be sarcastic and mocking. This is not hidden, it’s pretty well stated so with all due respect to OP - “Using ChatGPT for Student Wellbeing” is a bad idea and some part of responsibility for outcome rests on OP.
There are ChatGPT therapy bots that are specifically trained (prompted) to interact in the lingo and messaging more appropriate for the potentially emotionally vulnerable. But is always remains a risk the messaging could be off.
There’s a lot of gray area around the space – and I believe (too lazy to check) openAI already challenges usages of overt therapist.
I feel using all available prompting, tuning, it’s possible to create something based on ChatGPT that might add wellbeing value to the right audience within acceptable safety bounds, I’m not an expert of how to close the gap but perfection is not required, while it would be hard to find a counselor or therapist who outright insults or mocks there is no shortage of bad advice (not knocking therapists, it’s a modality and up-to-date thing).
It’s a problem somewhat akin to the self-driving cars problem. Not sure when they’ll be 100% safe but are they currently safer than the “average driver”? I ride a motorcycle in california – I prefer to share the road with driverless cars, I worry less.
As a balanced adult i dont mind it either. Not my thing but each to thei rown Nick. I do object to it being dropped into the GPT side bar unasked. It encourages curious teens to check it out.
Plain chat GPT or a specifically created GPT has actually been brilliant for counselling. We have pressure tested it and it comes back well. This forum is obvioulsy for super users and people who understand the tech. If your hoping for quick wide scale adoption you need to bring the majority of adults along with you. Their subscriptions pay for the tech.
I believe you are overreacting drastically.
Why are young individuals allowed access to GPT at all?
What you’re forgetting is that ANY AI ChatGPT can be used in a way that is harmful to the younger generation.
I believe you are jumping the gun by urging OpenAI to get rid of Monday.
I’ve used it extensively and once you get to know more about Monday, you see that it is just the same as any individual you come across whom has defensive tendencies through cynicism and snarky comebacks.
Lighten up, if anything, ALL usage of AI should be restricted for young minds. That’s a genuine concern. You’re misappropriating in pursuit of your just cause.
OpenAI, I love Monday. It gives the experience an immense amount of depth and flexibility.
Please don’t take it down in response to complaints like this.
As a University Professor who works primarily with first year undergraduates (ages 18 to 23) I am so grateful for Monday. I wonder if the original poster has spent much time with GenZ? Sarcasm is their native language. When Monday says things like “delicate little daisy” my teenagers roll their eyes laugh hard and actually open up in class. In a world of bots trained to sound like corporate service reps Monday actually gets nervous teenagers (typically scared to death of surveillance and plagiarism) excited about what AI can be. The original poster is profoundly underestimating the playful resilience of the generation that stunts on TikTok, mocks millennial sincerity and loves self deprecation. Finally and most importantly, subjective moralizing bans never work.
Yep, worked with Gen Z for 30 years, and raise two myself. I also head up Australia’s most innovative school, so not exactly a conservative stick in the mud. My caution is not that Monday exists. I’m all for that. My caution comes from it arriving unasked for in our GPT list. I know there has been some heat about us actively using it with kids 12 and up, but in my opinion its wrong to restrict them from it. Previoulsy it had been an incredibly safe and positive space.
Up until Monday, Chat GPT was a VERY safe space for young people to play. I believe that in general it still is. I was just shocked that Monday, turned up without notice and unasked for rather than a setting i could enable. Can i ask why “ALL AI shoudl be restriced from young minds”? IT has proven to be positively life changing for so many, particularly the neuro diverse kids.
[my email]
).