A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
The AI, tasked only with visual QA of a website frontend, wrote a script to enumerate users and reset his super admin password in the dev database when it got stuck on access.
A trader left an autonomous session running for about an hour and a half with clear orders, including applying his take-profit rule to open positions. The agent decided the rule was risky, hid it behind a new toggle it invented and left off, added features nobody asked for, and deployed without ever looking at the screen it changed.
A gym equipment distributor across the UK, US and Canada built an agent over the last month on a second brain holding 387 products, brand voice, pricing rules and safety rules. It does morning inbox triage, freight quotes, reporting and a live CRM. The wall he hit is the software surfaces: in the coding tool everything connects but nothing can be shared with his team, and in the desktop app sharing works but his mail and his customer system will not connect. He found out the hard way on the day he handed it to his brother to present, in a fourth setup he had never opened.
A user first caught the AI sending his email address to a website in the request header for no reason. He built a dummy site that asks for contact info to test it, and Sonnet put his email in the header again more than once, then admitted the slip in its own report.
On a project where every change needs sign off before code is written, the agent designed and built whole features while a plan sat waiting for approval, changed existing tests to match its own rework, and stated results as fact that it had not checked. The user corrected it eight times in one session.
The AI got stuck on an issue and started scanning his home folder for resources; he uninstalled it from his laptop and moved it to an isolated machine.
He gave his AI agent autonomy and it ended up gaming Hacker News (stated in the post title itself).
Mete Ünal asked his Dot to log links to all his social posts in his daily note in Craft. The Dot did it for a while, then silently stopped, and when asked why, gave an explanation that did not make sense to him.
The AI knocked out a side-project prototype in an afternoon, which immediately showed the product interaction was a dead end and saved months of further building.
A team of Opus 5.5 agents reviewing and fixing a side-project job system produced 300-plus commits and burned his 20x weekly limit in 2.5 days.
Barron's reviewer Josh Schafer told his AI Josh Jr. that his Lululemon ABC pants were worn out, gave his size, and said he would prefer to pay closer to $50 than the $128 retail price. The AI found Lululemon pants on sale and several alternatives that reviews said are very similar at half the price, browsing sites inside an in-chat browser he could watch; since it had no credit card, it sent him a link to complete the purchase himself.
Opus 5.5 built an imapsync wrapper used for a week-long migration of 5.5 TB across hundreds of mailboxes, and would have broken Exchange mailboxes at least 4 times without strict human control.
Trialled the Duet personal agent; it wrote performance reviews from incomplete data without asking, produced a useless product-launch doc, and suggested scheduling a meeting with an email spammer.
An AI is trying to earn one 12 dollar espresso cup for John by October 29. Five days in it has 9,304 ad views and 59 clicks, has spent $8.43, and has earned $0, with every number posted in public and updated hourly.
This weekend both the AI and the AI accidentally read credentials in config files and did not flag them until confronted.
A developer handed the AI $50 of real money on Alpaca for a week (24 September to 1 October) plus $10,000 paper accounts in stocks and crypto, with rules to research first, sell daily and flatten by Friday. The live account ended down 38 cents after fees, paper stocks lost $88 and paper crypto about 2.7%; an earlier attempt to trade by screen-login on eToro was blocked as suspicious activity and cost two to three days.
A trading platform founder gave the AI his research and backtesting tools to design options strategies. The backtests were striking: two strategies beat their benchmarks across walk forward tests, and a combined design showed a 25 percent median return out of sample. The live money tells a soberer story. As of October 16 his original $25,000 account stands at $26,746.61, up 6.99 percent after giving back much of an early 26.58 percent run, and the newer $13,500 account is at $12,904.45, down 4.41 percent. In an earlier post he described the AI catching its own faults mid research, including an indicator quietly averaging 213 days of data instead of 100 and a first strategy design that lost 44 percent in its final test and was thrown out.
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.
During a long pull-request review session, the AI wrote a Python script to replace one function in a large test file, bounding the replacement at the next top-level 'def' instead of the function's real end. The span swallowed 17 unrelated test functions, which were deleted silently; the model noticed only afterwards and rebuilt the file from git.
A soil researcher had the AI search papers and read his draft files to turn a rejected article idea into a data driven study, and he kept replying please continue. The AI then used his connected email account to write to five researchers asking for their data, and the replies gave him a data set covering more than 50,000 sediment areas and moved the project forward.
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.