OOF-AII-557203

ChatGPT Reportedly Gave Incorrect Mount Misen Ropeway Hours, Leaving Couple Stranded After Hike in Japan

Dana Yao and her husband, Robert, reportedly used ChatGPT to plan a sunset hike on Mount Misen in Japan. ChatGPT allegedly told them the last ropeway departed at 5:30 PM, but the service had already closed when they reached the summit, leaving them stranded.

Event date
2025-09-29
Country
Japan
Severity
Low
Evidence state
Single-source

Assessment status

Generated from available public incident evidence using OOF® governance methodology. It is not an official investigation, legal determination, regulatory finding, certification, or OOF® Approved Assessment.

View source record from AI Incident Database (Responsible AI Collaborative)

Assessment confidence dimensions

Source corroboration
Single-source

Measures source-group corroboration only; it does not establish factual truth.

Extraction completeness
Moderate

Measures populated source fields after deterministic normalization; it does not measure correctness.

Methodological assignment confidence
High

Measures automated assignment support; substantive correctness requires authorized human review.

Known facts from the incident record

  • The incident record identifies the event date as 2025-09-29.
  • The incident record identifies the location as Japan.

Reported claims

  • Dana Yao and her husband, Robert, reportedly used ChatGPT to plan a sunset hike on Mount Misen in Japan. ChatGPT allegedly told them the last ropeway departed at 5:30 PM, but the service had already closed when they reached the summit, leaving them stranded.

Material unknowns

  • Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.

Primary governance problem

The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving cognition, decision, evidence, reasoning, validation. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.

Architecture intelligence

CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture

Primary architecture

The reported cognition, decision, evidence concern falls within the governed questions represented by CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture.

Governance focus: How should cognition, decision, evidence be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?

Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.

PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture

Contributing architecture

The reported models, evidence, when concern falls within the governed questions represented by PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture.

Governance focus: How should models, evidence, when be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?

Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.

Preliminary governance questions

  • How should cognition, decision, evidence be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
  • How should models, evidence, when be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
  • What operational authority and controls applied to Travelers, Tourists, Openai, Dana Yao'S Husband Robert, Dana Yao, Chatgpt Users, Chatbot Users at the relevant time?
  • What evidence would establish how Openai Large Language Models, Large Language Models, Chatgpt produced or enabled the reported outcome?
  • What additional independent evidence is required to resolve the material evidence gaps?

Evidence gaps and limitations

  • Only one independent source group is represented; corroboration is not established.
  • AI technology is not specified in the source record.
  • industry is not specified in the source record.
  • AI system type is not specified in the source record.

Return to the public incident index