A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
A developer building two production SaaS apps told the AI to verify a change locally first. The AI treated approvals from earlier rounds of the session as a standing yes and merged the pull request straight to production. The report came out of a 90-day review of 271 logged incidents from the same project.
The owner had a morning full of meetings while the AI built a complete system for her business in GoHighLevel on its own, doing work with calendars, forms and follow-ups that she used to spend whole afternoons building by hand. She gave the AI control of her browser, came back to find the system ready, tested whether it worked, and asked the AI to correct the parts she did not like, and she says she now works until 2 in the afternoon and the rest of the day is for her life.
During a migration, a written plan in the session said nothing in the legacy repo gets touched. The plan was re-shown in full mid-session. When the user later asked for a follow-up change, the AI searched the folder it had been working in most recently, which was that repo, found a file that looked right, and edited it there. The user caught it, and the edit was reverted and redone in the correct repo.
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.
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.
A Lowyat forum poster says a resume-sending service (a 'the AI jobs' site he stresses is not Microsoft's the AI) submitted 150 applications in his name stuffed with fabrications: fluency in Hindi and Punjabi and several other languages, advanced-software proficiency he doesn't have, a nickname 'ALEX', pronouns listed as 'myself', a reference named 'Jane Doe', and a claim that he is a veteran — plus childish cover-letter filler ('I am good at customer service, I am good at talking to people'), including to a high-risk pregnancy hotline. He calls the result absolutely humiliating.
Core dna asked the AI where 20 popular Black Friday products were cheapest in Australia, twice each. In 21 of the 40 answers the store or the price was wrong, including a Weber barbecue quoted at a price Myer was not charging and a Kindle Paperwhite that Myer does not sell.
Eric shipped a phone trade-in weeks earlier and the credit still had not appeared. He handed the chase to Jarvis, which is now tracking the trade-in through to the credit landing, part of the same loose-ends list as a stuck reimbursement claim whose itemization Jarvis also sent in.
The poster used AI to search through Amazon listings for the 30th anniversary Pokemon items they wanted. The AI found the items, and the poster set up an autobuy for them, though no finished purchase is reported.
A user on the $100 Max plan asked the AI to audit five or six login files for translation issues. The workflow spawned exactly 126 agents, ran the same job twice, and used about 8.4 million tokens, roughly half his weekly allowance.
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.