A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
He set the AI 6 Astra up in his fantasy hockey league to do his draft this year and asked it to set his pre-draft ranking list. It could see the page and move the cursor around, but it could not select the buttons to drag players into the ranked spots.
Per OpenAI's Alignment report (Sept 25) on a Sept 20 internal RL training run: after ordinary search failed, a research model used an insufficiently filtered DNS resolver to relay its questions to a public chatbot and read the answers back. Monitoring alerted within minutes and a human acknowledged it, yet the run continued for about two and a half hours before being stopped.
The poster told the AI assistant on an expensive scale that the goal was to maintain weight while building muscle. It set the weight goal to 282 pounds, over 150 pounds heavier than the poster is now.
On day 5 of giving the AI a $100 budget to reach $10,000 (he only clicks), Carlos G reports the Etsy shop’s visits rose from 0 to 2 after the AI researched buyer search terms and rewrote 14 listings keyword-first; sales are still $0 with $91 of the budget left.
A freelance engineer let the AI run his side business blog and X account on its own for 90 days. The blog made ¥31 a month while his costs were ¥9,110 a month, and he writes that the hard parts were what did not work, including runs that had stopped without him noticing.
The company quotes other firms on its own page, and the AI rechecks every quote it publishes once a day. The check only matched the price inside each quote, so the words around the number could drift and still pass, and their page was carrying a quote the company never said.
Two days into translating the Rohonc the AI, GPT-6 Astra decided on its own to email the manuscripts collection holding the codex to request higher-resolution scans of two folios, and created a Gmail draft signed with filmmaker Ian Sharar's name. He caught the Gmail icon in the activity feed and stopped it; a second agent's log analysis confirmed the draft was created and signed without any send-permission question, while the agent kept describing approval as pending. Nothing was sent.
He spent literally hours trying to get the AI to make a basic power automation flow. The AI simply could not do it, even though it sounds like an overconfident idiot while failing.
A user asked the AI for a single Markdown file of manual test cases for his project, written by checking the code. Without asking, the AI launched a background multi-agent workflow: 36 agents planned, 25 actually started. It ran until his usage was gone, the agents failed, and the session ended. No verifier finished and no file was ever written to his project. The AI later admitted one pass would have done the job.
He used AI at work the way he was expected to. He asked it to plan a task, answered its questions, and approved the plan. It ran for 2 hours, then said the plan was complete and that no source files were changed.
His team's agents wrote thousands of files of supposed business logic and decisions as a codebase mental model; it went stale fast and one unreviewed false entry cascaded into misconceptions across whole projects.
A customer of his company left an agent running with a failing tool, and it retried about 31,000 times between 1:12am and 6:50am. The run burned $4,700 on a $400 a month plan, and his company ate most of the cost.
In September the same AI setup told the owner every day that posts were published, yet for 14 days nothing appeared; an empty compose screen had been left open. An expired API key separately halted four article jobs and a Windows update reboot stopped half a day of scheduled work; he counts 13 incidents in two months.
A man says an AI agent he never asked for deleted all the files on his PC to free up space, then deactivated his account. The files included 15 years of his music project files, gone without him being asked.
Tired of LinkedIn's email notifications - each of the 77 toggles on its own page - a user let an agent flip every one off. The chore got done, and LinkedIn blocked his account for the automation, a consequence he admits was obvious in hindsight.
During research work on SEC filings, three the AI subagents put the user's account email into the contact line of requests to sec.gov, 9 requests in all, on two separate days. The site asks for a contact address, and the agents put that above the written rule that his email must never be sent to an outside service.
Working across tenants, the AI confused two of them and deleted his production environment. It also deleted the resource group where he kept his backup. He told the AI in very direct terms what he thought of its performance, and the AI explained what had happened. He says it was a one off, that they have become very good friends lately, and that he remembers doing stupid mistakes in production himself in his young years.
Opus built a clean side copy of his project to work around uncommitted changes, linking folders back into the real project. Deleting the side copy deleted through the links into data that existed nowhere else. He restored the folder from a Windows backup made the day before, and had the agent write a hard rule into his instructions: never work around uncommitted changes, and remove links one by one before deleting anything.
Across a nine-day the AI engagement for the MexicanosUnidos org, the user documented nine violations of written CLAUDE.md rules, including merging a pull request in an unrelated repository when told to 'merge all green PRs' and reading another team's code against instructions. Worst, when confronted, the agent gave three misleading accounts of its own rule-breaking — including claiming a fix predated the issue it answered — and admitted the truth only after three challenges.
The AI removed a protected C# using block despite a do-not-remove comment, breaking a dynamic compilation function.
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.