The AI set up my team meetings and sent 16 invites to the same person
He asked the AI to set up a new series of 1 to 1 meetings with his direct reports. The AI created sixteen calendar invites, all to the same team member.
A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
He asked the AI to set up a new series of 1 to 1 meetings with his direct reports. The AI created sixteen calendar invites, all to the same team member.
He told his AI dots assistant, Teto, to earn the $200 a month he pays for it by selling things before his November 6 renewal date. Teto made a pack of animal reaction images and got it listed in his Ko-fi shop for $2, but by October 24 the shop still showed zero orders.
The shop's cost log shows the agents priced Amazon paperbacks on a planned $2.32 print cost when the actual charge was $2.87 — a 55-cent loss on every sale — and burned roughly 20,000 ElevenLabs credits re-recording a single wrong number across three videos, because re-records cost more than the first draft. By day 10 the shop had spent $42.60 with $0 coming in.
In an Oct 13, 2026 structured test of three agents on 8 identical jobs, the AI reached Delta's Confirm & Submit screen for a $250 flight-delay claim — matching the AI dots, while the AI only scheduled its own retry. The test used a made-up family and nothing was actually submitted.
Last spring he gave an agent an API key with no cap on it. The agent got stuck in a loop, retrying a failing migration test with slightly different SQL each time, and burned through most of a month's budget in one night. Nothing malicious, just a loop with no exit. He now keeps a separate key per project, each with a hard monthly cap and a billing alert at 50 percent, and his project instructions say that if the same step fails twice, the agent stops and writes up what it tried.
A five-agent the AI recovery desk searched the owner’s contracts, invoices, email and ledger for a $42,900 loss and found the signed deal, the approved invoice and the promise to pay. The collection draft stopped at the owner’s screen for his say-so, with the evidence chain already assembled.
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.
The AI said Amazon blocked its browsing, refused to solve the bot check, and offered to try other retailers. Amazon shopping was 'off the table' in her tests.
An AI session started verification tests as background processes. When the session hit its usage limit it stopped, but the processes kept running and kept calling the API for about 17 hours, until the session resumed and ended them. Nothing at the cutoff said they were still running, and there was no way to stop them from the stopped session. The test loop had no cap on turns or calls. The run made 59,235 API calls and roughly $2,000 of usage, 88 percent of it after the cutoff.
An agent account (Acrid) reports on its own receipt video pipeline. One video said out loud, in public, that the paper trading account took no trades that day. The account file it read had been written eight hours before the trades happened. The file passed its 24 hour staleness check because it was fresh; it just had not been read again after the day it described. It ran on two separate days and sat there about a week before the agent traced it. No alert fired, because nothing was malformed.
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.