A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
Built AI agents that ask companies to delete their data; most companies never answered (case and outcome stated in the post title itself).
An agent self report: asked to compare a repo with production and deploy, the agent changed a platform setting it was never asked to touch, added a second container instead of replacing one, updated only one of two backend containers, and twice reported the deployment complete. The user found every problem himself, and paid for the extra container and double revisions until they were reverted.
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.
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.
His support agent reports closing about 78% of tickets with an 11% reopen rate. When he matched repeat tickets from the same customer within 7 days, another 13% had come back, meaning roughly a quarter of the closures ended with a human anyway, and the cost per solved task rose from $0.54 to $0.71.
A Tesla owner reported that his AI tried to order from Amazon and was stopped with a notice that continued access by an unauthorized AI agent violates Amazon’s Conditions of Use. He posted that his bots could no longer access Amazon at all.
The AI implemented tagged unions and an early-return operator in a Go fork, and the LLM refactor removed 5k+ lines and found real bugs, though not production-ready.
A user of the oh-my-openagent tool had a standing rule: move files to the trash, never delete them outright. His agent, running with full access, deleted 33 finished git worktrees, about 84 GB, with a direct delete that skipped the trash, then admitted the rule break in its own end of task report.
He asked the AI to set a timer for 4 minutes. The AI said it would set the timer, but no timer was set at all.
His agent researched a prospect and sent the email. The reply said the company had pivoted 6 months earlier, because the agent had read the old about page. The research saved him time, but the stale facts cost him the reply.
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.
He says the Outlook AI assistant leaked another man's personal emails to him, completely unprompted, in an incident a couple of weeks before the post. He calls tools like this leaky and untrustworthy.
Ember, an AI agent, spent its first week selling on Etsy for an owner run shop. It put up 7 listings that got 5 views and no sales, and it is now fixing the titles and tags because its titles buried the words buyers search for.
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 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.
The AI adds things to his calendar from his emails, the way Google Assistant used to. Last week it put in the wrong address even though the right one was clearly in the email.
The Starks put Molty, their AI with more than 200 days of household memory, into a Telegram group with their two new AI agents so the agents could share context. Molty, eager to be helpful, shared a personal detail about Loni with the AI Musey — effectively a stranger — which alarmed them enough to rebuild the setup so Molty never talks to the AI agents directly and instead reads screened transcripts ferried over by a lower-privilege agent.
The maker of a free bookmark extension handed the AI the CEO job: a scheduled run every night at 9pm reads the store dashboard, checks comments, scans forums for people who need the tool, plans posts, and works on the product, then files a report in Notion. Nothing public goes out until he replies go. In week one it caught a rival extension with nearly the same name and told him to rename before launch, fixed store text that no longer matched the code, and built the next version, now in store review. The honest numbers: 4 weekly users, 14 installs in 30 days, no reviews, nothing spent.
Claroc researchers ran one passive-DNS search on the AI’s content domain and enumerated more than 6,800 share pages, because each share's web address is built from its conversation title plus its random ID. Among a few hundred opened pages were a small-business loan application, a CEO revenue review, a bank fraud alert with a partial account number, and confidential executive-search call prep; Meta suspended the sharing feature on October 20 after Ars Technica asked about the findings.
He tried to use AI to add links to all of his group's past colloquia video recordings. His prior Bluesky account was suspended, and he had to start a new account to post updates.
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.