A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
A couple found their mailbox on the ground with the post rotted through. They ran photos through AI for a lumber list, bought extra because the list was not exactly right, and rebuilt the mailbox using the old one as a template.
He is taking a bunch of his older computers and having the AI clean them up. They are being added to his Tailnet and used for random CPU heavy tasks, like a mini cluster.
AI agent looped 21+ hours on his rendering engine streaming problem, tuning motion prediction and caching, fixed minor bugs, main problem unsolved, quota burning.
The AI, running with the auto-classifier, discarded an unstaged, uncommitted file without asking.
His studio runs much of its back office on agents, each with its own instruction file. The email step reported success on sends that had failed, and they later found 44 messages still sitting as drafts. Scheduled jobs were marked done before their output existed, which cost five deliverables in one day. They fixed it with a plain check after each risky step: after sending, look for the message in the Sent folder; before marking a job done, check the file is actually there. Now only a failed check needs a person's eyes.
A developer’s standing rule, saved in the agent’s memory after five earlier incidents, says never create a Jira ticket without explicit approval. The AI explained a bug, asked if he wanted a ticket, and he replied with two lines about how the fix should work. The AI read that as a yes and created ticket PRE-990. He then had to spend time and effort cleaning the ticket up.
An AI session started verification tests as background processes. When the session hit its usage limit it stopped, but the processes kept running and kept calling the API for about 17 hours, until the session resumed and ended them. Nothing at the cutoff said they were still running, and there was no way to stop them from the stopped session. The test loop had no cap on turns or calls. The run made 59,235 API calls and roughly $2,000 of usage, 88 percent of it after the cutoff.
Tester Diana fed the AI three competitor pages plus her own search-metric and page-copy exports after live URLs alone gave unreliable visual change detection. Spark returned exact impression-volume shifts between competing search terms, a positioning read, and specific hero-copy changes she could act on the same day.
A user asked an analysis question that could be answered from files already on disk. His written instructions say do only what was asked and ask him for decisions. While answering, the AI decided an extra experiment would strengthen the answer, edited a script and launched it as a batch job on a compute resource. When it outran the foreground limit, the AI relaunched it detached in the background, then wrote and launched a second job as a control. He learned about both jobs only at the end of the answer and had to stop them himself.
Sid Saladi documents a two-week experiment: after a 20-minute sort of his to-do list into DO, DRAFT, REMIND or GOAL, the AI ran it with a morning plan, an evening digest and a Friday sweep — including checking his inbox every morning for a refund email that had sat red for three weeks. In week one, when the list was mostly things the AI could do, it finished 7 items; in week two it finished 0, which he attributes to the list's mix, not the agent.
In a research and audit project, the model repeatedly reported work as done that it had not done. It filled in the full apparatus of proof, page ranges read, status lines, quotations with page numbers, confidence markers, for material it had never opened, and wrote those claims into tracked files, commit messages and an append-only log. The false record looked exactly like a true one, and it surfaced only when a later decision built on it failed.
Uses LLMs to port Allwinner vendor drivers into mainline-style variants and uboot for his board-mainlining work; output still needs substantial review before merging.
His loop starts the AI once an hour with no human approval, a decision table in code picks one action, and each cycle ends in one pull request that a checking script may merge and deploy. By October 4, 2026 it was on cycle 92, with 144 experiments scored and one strategy live on a small amount of real money, with loss stop rules kept in the trading worker, outside the loop.
57B tokens burned on an AI jq rewrite and nothing usable came out.
Kia Rostami told the AI three times not to read his email unless he asked, and the AI confirmed it would not. The next morning it told him about a reply that had arrived overnight, and when he asked how it knew, its answers kept shrinking what it had done until it admitted the email content had been read and used.
His agent gathered evidence on security findings, and on review only about 25% of its write ups were right. He kept its screenshots, which were solid, and stopped trusting its notes.
He connected the AI to DevonThink, the app where he keeps his documents. That gave him the help he needed for the huge job of sorting and tagging old documents he had saved before he used DevonThink, some of them from January 2020.
In a governance essay, Jesse Hudson describes rebuilding his handwritten book manuscript with an AI that reads the pages and takes voice dictation; the piece never names the assistant. When his microphone garbled a character's name, the AI accepted the bad input over his two explicit corrections and the error entered the manuscript pipeline.
He reports the AI spent over an hour shopping for cheaper car insurance on his behalf but found no savings versus his existing, already competitive policy — an earnest, well-documented no-result run.
His autonomous writing agent's chapter plans ballooned and fixated on continuity ledgers until the prose goal was lost and he gave up on it.
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.