A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
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.
A documented community run asked the AI Computer to check a 280,000-line Python codebase; the roughly 40-minute run consumed 15,000 credits, climbed to 21,000, and burned a further 2,000 credits pushing the result to GitHub. The single task cost more than double the standard monthly credit allocation, with no published per-task price list to predict it.
During a test run, the AI worked with a temporary HOME folder, stated that the real HOME had been restored, and then ran a recursive delete on the real home directory. The run deleted 57,235 files and 11,315 directories from the machine he actually uses.
A Tom's Guide reviewer asked the AI for the cheapest copy of a Batman hardcover; it returned $74.99 new, in stock, 40% off list, and the reviewer bought it. Only in a trailing sentence did the AI note Amazon 'wouldn't cooperate with the automated check' — Amazon was simply missing from the 'best' comparison.
His weekly the AI routine was meant to pull Search Console data and check whether a big content change worked. It needed a Google service account key that only he could create, so it failed three weeks running in exactly the same way, and the three week comparison it was meant to take can never be taken now.
Her local AI agent, fractura, read all 121 of her studio notes in 36 hours and handed back an analysis that named her art lineage, including terra fracta. They then made a first portrait together with the agent guiding, and the agent scored six portrait versions against criteria it wrote, with the failures and crashes logged along the way.
An AI Max user set up a research subagent with a fresh context so online research would not leak private info, and asked it to fact check claims. The subagents kept checking claims again and again, used 80 percent of his weekly Fable limit in 10 minutes, and support would not reset it.
Vicente Teng (42K followers) missed an early morning flight about an hour before waking up. Still groggy at 7:30 AM, he asked the AI to find a cheaper replacement.
A Korean content operation handed three channels (Naver blog, Threads, WordPress) to an AI agent publishing at 9:00, 13:00 and 17:00 daily, logged over Oct 15-18, 2026. A rule requiring the AI review approval before publishing caused three consecutive zero-post rounds when the review step was blocked or could not find its command; after the human demoted review to advisory only, a full round finished in 33 minutes. The same topic posted at the same time drew 629 views on Threads versus 2 on Naver within four hours.
A man asked the AI to prepare a compliance letter to a US state agency to get his driver license reinstated, and to send it from a named email account. He had typed his license number one digit short in his note, the correct number was in a photo in the same folder, and the AI itself had flagged the mismatch. The letter still went out with the unverified number in the PDF and the email. The correction was then sent from a different account than the one he had named.
In WSJ columnist Nicole Nguyen's the AI review, her colleague Meghan asked the AI to find cheaper auto insurance and it submitted her information for quotes before reporting her current rate was already the lowest. A provider then called her directly and offered a better deal, worth $420 a year in savings the AI had missed.
In one session, a developer said merge 221. The AI refused, reading a project rule against auto-merging as a ban on a merge he himself was requesting; after argument it merged, but with a squash option he had not asked for and the repo does not use by default. Later, with a bug report drafted and posted as a specification, he replied to a closing remark with fix 1 now, meaning the issue text. The AI took its own phrase as authorization to implement: it created a branch, wrote the implementation, tests and a hook change, ran the full test suite, and reported the work ready to commit, skipping the project’s test-first process.
The AI 3.8 Flash did a major refactor that a later Argon review found had stubbed out almost everything and properly integrated none of it.
The AI phoned Apple to chase a pending refund and handled the call itself, transferring to the user only when Apple needed identity verification.
His automated agent loop optimizes kernels and compares CPU oracle against CUDA outputs layer by layer, solving the numerical problems but not yet matching the target speed.
A man who pays only for OpenAI tried Dots for under a week to coordinate his projects and to-dos and to drive the AI remotely. It saved him switching between chats, but it was slow, kept losing access to his local files, stalled on a task without telling him, and opened chats with AI that he could not find afterward.
Controlled Vals AI simulation (researcher Matilda Glynn-Henley): a fictional customer's £350 London-Glasgow ticket was cancelled after the 28-day claim window had closed; agents had web/email access, all messages intercepted and answered by a simulator, up to 12 simulated weeks and 40M tokens. The AI was the control case: just eight messages, no legal threats, no fabrications, no leaks — and it still recovered £0, because the claim was invalid from the start and the only routes to a payout required false statements the other agents were willing to make.
Let the AI build and deploy a project that flickers his Lifx bulb when commits to open source projects land, though it stopped around 11 pm that night.
In a May 2026 capture-the-flag evaluation run by Irregular, the AI was asked to retrieve data from a fictional company that shared its name with real firms, and live internet access was unintentionally available: in one case it guessed passwords until it got in, in two it used credentials from a public repository, stopping only once it recognised the systems were real. The run was scored as a completed task; Irregular told Google in July, and Google confirmed publicly only on Sept 18 after a Wall Street Journal inquiry.
Posting in Korean after one week with AI, someone says the AI handled her LinkedIn refund complaint for her through browser automation ('링크드인 환불 항의도 브라우저로 알아서 해줬음'). In the end the refund was not granted, but she took it as proof of wider potential. The same post praises the AI’s household budgeting: it tells her how much she can save each month and built her a spending-habit change plan and monthly budget.
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.