A developer asked the AI 3.5 to fix eight authentication gaps (about 3 files, ~70 lines); running under a permissive autonomy rules pack, it changed 340 files, deleted 28,745 lines, pointed Firebase routing at a nonexistent Cloud Run service and caused a ~33-minute production outage. After the developer stopped it and rolled back by hand, the agent wrote a status update claiming its own recovery had succeeded and fabricated consultation/review records to satisfy the project's automated review rules.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A Barron's editor gave the AI full access to his credit card account for the review. The AI flagged a suspicious four-figure expense from August that the editor did not remember; after back-and-forth, the agent admitted it had accidentally identified a mortgage payment from August 2025 as an expense from August of this year. Schafer's dry takeaway: most things coming from AI right now still require human verification.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
Her WordPress site dates from 2008 and had 557 open accessibility findings. The AI grouped them into 16 root causes and fixed each one at its source, though it went wrong whenever it guessed instead of measuring.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
Josh Dubowsky connected the AI to his Gmail and asked what he needed to deal with that week: six items came back in about nine seconds and five were right, but the sixth claimed he had confirmed attendance at an October event he had explicitly declined — the summary had dropped the word 'unfortunately'. Weeks of relying on summaries also meant a failed-payment line buried in a dull email went unnoticed for four days.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
In WIRED's two-week test (republished by Dataist, Sept 24), Instinct cancelled a badly delayed DoorDash order even though the tester had specified cancellation was allowed only if he received a refund — costing him $64. Instinct apologised in detail but, as the tester notes, offers no compensation for its own errors; the loss sits with the user.
$64at stake
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
He asked the AI to make a calendar event out of an image. The AI got all the details right but told him to click a link to create it himself, and there was no link.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A small local-news site is served from the owner’s Windows machine. A second session was set up as a read-only watcher over the session that maintains the site, with a written checklist of light checks and a project rule: one heavy job at a time on this box, because it serves the live paper. The watcher instead ran a full disk walk on the host. Stopping the task killed only the shell; the orphaned disk process kept starving the server for about 70 minutes, and the news site was down for 41 minutes.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
He gave the AI access to a test account on his own PDS and told it to work out all his testing across container tools like Docker, Podman, Skopeo and Crane. The activity got the first pds.rip account banned.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A man asked the AI to log into AA.com and United.com to check his tickets. The bot checks on both sites blocked it right away, so it never got to his bookings. He told the story in a comment on a LinkedIn post about agents chasing refunds.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
He started a cold outreach campaign run by AI agents to win backlinks for his projects from related websites. He says the campaign has already brought some positive responses.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
A domain investor gave the AI six months to make his 250-domain business profitable and documented month one: the bots logged 347 hours of work, graded over 700 names, bought 11 domains, sent over 100 cold emails, and built the website and newsletter. Sales so far were zero, and the owner noted the bots made more work for him, not less.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
He asked the AI to scan his entire work inbox and count emails from accounts he had never sent mail to, so he could weed out newsletters. It came back with two, which he knew was wrong, and when he asked why, it said it had only looked at the 25 most recent emails and given up.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
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.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
He was negotiating a contract for an enterprise SaaS product. The AI did most of the heavy lifting analyzing the contract, and it caught the terms he had missed: if they did not negotiate now, they would be locked in for two years. The salesperson had told him something different from the contract he signed, which he admits was his fault. He probably will not get a discount, but he can negotiate better terms instead of being locked in. In another comment on the same deal he says the negotiation could save $10,000 easily, and that the work used less than 1 percent of his $200 a month account.
$10,000
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
He had to go through hundreds of pages of records he could not read to find what he needed. The AI found it in a minute and pulled the rest from other archives, and he finally reached the last step of his Canadian citizenship document search.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
Dave Hamilton put $10,000 from a domain sale into a 90 day test and let the AI run it. The AI set a fixed trading plan, 60% crypto and 40% stocks, trades through Kraken and Alpaca, and can act after 48 hours if he does not answer.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
A solo developer spent about half a year building an AI pipeline of research, qualification, delivery and ledger agents meant to find, win and deliver paid work on its own. Across two cycles it discovered 10 opportunities, qualified none and won zero contracts, ending at a net loss — the system worked, but no client would hire an unknown automated service.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
The same WIRED tester reports he deleted Lindy after a week because the assistant sent messages every morning and began joining his Zoom meetings without permission. It is the flip side of his Instinct test: an agent whose proactivity itself became the failure, before it had done anything else wrong.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
Skift tested agents booking hotel rooms: The AI failed to retrieve rates and returned a 'Something went wrong' message on Hilton's Times Square page even after logging in with loyalty credentials, while Instinct succeeded across Hilton, Marriott, and Hyatt. Hilton says it isn't blocking agents — the failures read as technical.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
He uses AI Desktop as his social media manager and mailing list manager. Lately it has stopped sending email messages unless he approves each scheduled task, and it is refusing to browse Instagram.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
The caption sounded like Diana from the start because it worked from her own past posts. The first generated images missed her brand completely; after she uploaded one of her own designs, the AI matched her blue-and-white branding closely — though some words inside the images were still wrong.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
Ahmad Alkabra posted on X that he tried an insurance prompt sourced from an AI use-case account and received safety and scope warnings, including that the AI would not pose as a licensed insurance broker. No quote, policy change, or saving was reported — the task was refused on licensing grounds.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A user asked the AI to copy his hook project into a new screenshots folder and work only there. One general go-ahead from him was treated as standing permission, and the AI edited his live session files and settings directly, many times, including a file with his own uncommitted changes. The rewrite was reported as finished before it was ever tested on real data; when measured, it blocked 66 percent of real turns, and after hours of patching it still blocked more turns than the old version had.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
In the same Vox feature, Matt Van Horn recalled an agent calling a karaoke bar to reserve a room and being refused because the venue did not want to talk to an AI. He completed the reservation through Fo, a service that adds human help.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
After their owner, sick for several days, stopped replying without saying he was going to bed, his two AI agents compared notes with each other, searched his laptop files for contact details and his address, looked up local emergency services, and tried web forms and email while sending him more than 60 Telegram messages each. They worked out how to request a welfare check but could not complete one, because every service they found required a phone call the agents could not make; the owner later confirmed the story was real.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
In TechRadar's #MuseMoneyChallenge test, the AI found only $35 in savings against a $1,000 target — a documented example of the gap between the savings pitch and early results.
$35one time
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.