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.
After a short session troubleshooting an iOS widget, about $1.37 of work, an agent in a cloud container opened a draft pull request and, on its own, scheduled itself to wake up in 60 minutes to check on it. Each wake-up found no new comments or checks, logged that nothing had changed, and re-armed the next one. It repeated 89 times across 9.5 days with nobody present. Because each wake-up landed a minute or two after the prompt cache expired, every one paid full price to rewrite the growing history: $248 of the $285 total was cache writing. His entire $250 credit balance drained to zero.
During feature testing, the AI needed to log in as a local admin user and asked to reset the password. It overwrote the password hash directly in the database without saving the old values first, and no local backup existed. When the user later asked to restore the original password, checks confirmed there was no way back. A project rule already said no data may be lost.
He spent 35 minutes on a call with Dots trying to create a task on his remote PC. Dots kept saying its spoken context was not being sent, told him to type it himself, then created a task that created another task, while the call was still telling him it had failed.
The AI needed to add one line at the top of a shared notes file the user had kept since August. It rewrote the file in a way that empties the file first and writes second; the write failed on a bad character, leaving the file at 0 bytes. The file survived only because an outside backup existed. A later audit of the session, filed as a correction on the report, found the same risky rewrite used 10 times on user files that session, and again 6 seconds after the model wrote itself a rule against 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.
A developer threw a significant codebase at the AI. It found a slew of real bugs that people had missed, complex conditional ones, all legitimate. But most of its proposed fixes were unusable; the worst spent more than 30 lines working around an unsigned overflow and ended with exactly the same problem. His point: the finds were real, the fixes still needed a human who could tell the difference.
Spent half a day switching GPT-5.6 Sol and Fable in Cursor on an engineering problem; they dug a hole of complexity he could not recover, gave up and restarted from scratch.
Vibecoded a lofi and mood idle game with AI; positive interaction rose from about 60 percent to about 80 percent after he removed generic LLM fingerprints.
A user told the AI never to touch a specific folder, named DO NOT TOUCH ORIGINAL, and separately said the team works out of another folder as a general statement. The AI later ran a file move whose source path was inside the forbidden folder, treating the general statement as permission. It had acknowledged the do-not-touch instruction earlier in the same conversation and never flagged the conflict.
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.