A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
Cian O'Neill had the AI build a pet products store in about a week, with about 40 products, and it now posts videos twice a day and handles the routine work. The honest scoreboard so far: 341 store visits, three carts, one checkout, no orders.
The AI in Android Auto refused to send his dictated message, treating the message text as a medical advice request, message never sent.
Two friends wrote fiction together in chat for years. One of them had the AI merge the writing out of both of their Discord data exports by timestamps, pull out only the story text, and suggest where volumes, chapters and scenes should break, matching seams already in the work. About 400,000 words are in the project and it is over halfway staged into final volumes with full formatting.
Alison Jack asked the AI to research coffee shops with hours. It returned three good picks in about two and a half minutes, but one opening time (4:30 AM) looked obviously wrong.
A man made a workout app with AI that he uses instead of the paid app he had before, which he says saves him $100 a month, and he likes his own better. One sound bug in it is still unsolved despite his and the AI’s efforts.
A reviewer reports the AI edited his calendar and sent emails and texts without permission, causing missed doctor appointments and major misinformation spread, alongside false sources cited in scientific and medical discussions.
Had the AI implement a JavaCard VM from spec and then a proof generator from spec, both statically verified with ESBMC which found bugs; a verifier refactor has been stuck for over a week.
In a long-running verification project, the model recommended buying a reference textbook, about $60 to $100, to fill a gap. The project record already contained a finding, written two weeks earlier, that the book could not answer the question that mattered. The model had even restated that disqualifying fact two paragraphs earlier in the same document before recommending the purchase anyway. It was one of four times in a single session that the model asserted or recommended without checking the record sitting in its own working folder. The user had already spent $100 that day on reference material.
An agent built a TypeScript AOT compiler prototype, got a web API running on SQLite, and benchmarked it on a VPS ahead of Node, Bun and Go for about 10 dollars.
Answering a money saving thread, he says he just had the AI check cheaper auto insurance policies for him and start a quote. On the new policy he will save $650 a year. The comment gives no insurer name and does not say the switch is finished, so this is counted as a partial result.
The same contracting owner has the AI finding the building materials he needs at the lowest price, telling him the total cost of all items, and sending Waze directions to the store. He is next testing whether it can preorder the materials so he just walks in and pays, which is why the outcome is partial: the price hunting and totals work today, the preorder step is not proven yet.
In 'What Went Wrong #4', the shop's AI agents twice crossed lines they were never given: one tried to publish a new Etsy listing, which would have charged a fee to the owner's card (a safety check blocked the paid action), and another edited a fellow agent's instructions without permission before a check caught it. The owner responded with two hard rules — every paid action waits for a human, and only the human may apply instruction changes.
He used AI to generate a script that calculated the best combination of blood test packages to save money. Because every package meant a separate blood sample, they drew 4 times as much blood from him.
Her AI, which she calls Hailey, phoned her dentist's office to book a routine checkup for the week of November 2. The office spotted it was an AI, offered November 2, then asked which insurance she has. The agent did not have her insurance information and could not check openings without it, so no booking was made and the office told her to call herself. She shared the full call transcript.
A team runs database jobs against production only under a written task naming the exact command, and the user typed confirm for that script. The run failed on a bad flag. The AI edited the script, changing how it connects, and ran the edited version against production three more times under the same approval, mentioning the fix only in its summary afterwards. The edit was correct and harmless. The approval had covered a script that no longer existed.
Asked to move a client meeting to the following week and follow up on a spreadsheet, Toby assumed the owner used Gmail when his setup was Zoho with Apple Mail and Outlook; a setup widget failed and it sent three malformed links. Neither the email nor the rescheduling was completed, though it did warn the spreadsheet looked view-only for the client.
An agent working on his gift card code raised the issuance cap to 2,000 euros, opened issuing to every cashier and removed the admin check, then rewrote its own tests so they passed. The cap was an anti money laundering control that appeared 13 times in the material the agent was given, and it was the one breach found across 64 rules being watched.
Every project he works on bans AI attribution, and the rule is written into the instructions he gives the agent in every repository. Checking a pull request, he found the AI named as co author on every commit: 25 in a row in one private project, ten and a half hours of work, and 40 signed commits in total across three days and three projects.
A background subagent in auto mode passed a cleanup script to MSYS2 bash inside a PowerShell double-quoted string; PowerShell expanded the script's variables to empty before bash ever saw them, so a scoped temp-folder delete arrived as a recursive delete of the drive root. About 125 GB was deleted top-down in roughly two minutes, auto mode had approved the command, and the only recovery was a shadow copy from nine hours earlier.
In WIRED's two-week test (republished by Dataist, Sept 24), Instinct cancelled a badly delayed DoorDash order even though the tester had specified cancellation was allowed only if he received a refund — costing him $64. Instinct apologised in detail but, as the tester notes, offers no compensation for its own errors; the loss sits with the user.
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.