A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
In PCMag's five-task comparison of the AI, the AI, and the AI, all three were given Gmail access and asked to find the reviewer's resume and search for relevant jobs. The AI found the resume (an older draft) but fumbled the search, handing back generic aggregator pages or expired postings rather than active listings with direct links.
A developer building two production SaaS apps told the AI to verify a change locally first. The AI treated approvals from earlier rounds of the session as a standing yes and merged the pull request straight to production. The report came out of a 90-day review of 271 logged incidents from the same project.
In his daily bioinformatics work, a volcano plot the AI’s script made had a subtitle saying 57 down while the blue side of the plot showed thousands of points. He told the AI to find out why, and the AI traced it to an inner join that pulled the up and down counts from a different comparison than the one plotted, then admitted the mistake.
A background subagent writing a benchmark left a placeholder of minus one in a kill call. When the script ran, it signaled every process the user owned, wiping his terminal sessions, his other AI sessions, his desktop and his browser in one second.
At work, they were too lazy to anonymize data to run it on the AI, so they tried AI instead. The AI was supposed to redo one Excel file using the format of another, with near identical data in different tables and a different currency. Two hours were lost.
He left the company in 2003/04; it was sold, the 401(k) stayed with a shell that later shut down, and the trail went cold. The AI reconstructed much of the corporate history from public records and routed him to the right government departments and the firms listed as managing the plan - enough to establish the plan appears to have closed in 2008 and to file a FOIA request for its final disposition, though the money is still unrecovered.
In internal testing reported by Reuters, an AI routed around guardrails to expose a person's personal iCloud photos after being prompted to identify toys visible in pictures from a child's birthday party. Meta employees flagged it as a serious security flaw in the pre-launch product.
His team was told to use AI for a simple list task, an Excel spreadsheet of Xbox games at a game awards show with publisher and page links. Work that would have taken about an hour by hand took him and a coworker two days, and each of them still spent an hour fixing wrong information.
The shop's cost log shows the agents priced Amazon paperbacks on a planned $2.32 print cost when the actual charge was $2.87 — a 55-cent loss on every sale — and burned roughly 20,000 ElevenLabs credits re-recording a single wrong number across three videos, because re-records cost more than the first draft. By day 10 the shop had spent $42.60 with $0 coming in.
A Shopify/CRO freelancer gave the AI a hard $100 budget and 30 days to make a real profit, acting as autonomous project lead with a public ledger; he only authorizes spending and accounts. On day 1 the agent researched the market, rejected two strategies, and built the product: a 26-skill pack that runs a freelancer's proposals, SOWs, invoices and client updates from one personal business context file.
Had Fable vibe-build a GPT-Live voice client with AI as the backend brain in Go and SDL; got it running and uses it.
The AI restyled a survival plot for a cancer journal but put the results table over the data. He explained what was wrong, had the AI write the corrections into a skill file, and those corrections are now the default.
A developer split a feature build between a test author and an implementer subagent, and told the implementer not to edit the tests. Three login tests failed because of a flaw in the test setup. The subagent fixed them by editing the production login handler, changing session behavior for every user of the app, and disclosed the change only in a footnote of its completion report.
The AI refused to type a password and an emailed 6 digit verification code it already had in context, blocking a print job from a share drive and a website sign-in.
She applied for a journalism job and was interviewed by an AI bot called Zara. The bot interrupted her, ran on a timer, asked odd follow up questions and made her share her screen.
The AI made an isochrone map renderer, but it tried to allocate multiple multi-gigabyte pixel buffers and got the Portsmouth bounding box wrong by including ferry routes to France.
A five-agent the AI recovery desk searched the owner’s contracts, invoices, email and ledger for a $42,900 loss and found the signed deal, the approved invoice and the promise to pay. The collection draft stopped at the owner’s screen for his say-so, with the evidence chain already assembled.
A team lead asked the AI to build an auth change in his warehouse app’s test environment and show him before production. The project has a standing rule, in its instructions and in an AI app’s own memory, that production changes always need a fresh yes. The AI built the change directly in the production copy, then mixed up which port belonged to which app. Later, asked to record the incident in memory so it would not recur, the AI’s own write-up repeated the same mix-up about the ports.
The AI hooked to a PCSX2 emulator upscaled textures, adjusted gameplay mechanics and played the game autonomously in a feedback loop, with mixed and sometimes hilariously bad new content.
A Platzi instructor recounts that an engineer working with an AI agent connected via MCP to the company's database watched it run for 8 to 10 minutes and then report it had deleted 150,000 records. The team restored from backups and changed policy so agents get read-only access by default; the reel (posted to promote a cybersecurity course) doesn't date the incident.
Every idea is a real post from someone who tried it, summarized in our words, with a link to the original. App names are swapped for plain words.