A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
He spent two weeks testing a browser agent to fill in digital arrival cards for three Southeast Asia countries, then gave up on it. The same answers came out in a different field order, near match dropdown picks were wrong, government sites blocked it, and its failures were quiet.
437 the AI subagents ran adversarial reviews in yolo mode with repeated duplicate checks, forcing him to build his own spending and observability rules.
Ademola A. (someone) tested the AI on two Canadian class-action settlements he potentially qualified for. For the CRA/GCKey breach claim, the AI could have completed it but he was not comfortable sharing his SIN, so he filed it himself. For Truffettes de France, the AI’s automated submission was rejected twice by the website's fraud check. His verdict: "Concept is great, but my experience was a bit mixed."
Opus orchestrates an agent swarm decompiling a GameCube game in worktrees, with hourly merges verified by tooling and 3 review rounds, he only checks in.
Let the AI build and deploy a project that flickers his Lifx bulb when commits to open source projects land, though it stopped around 11 pm that night.
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.
A reviewer handed GrokBot a backlog of nearly 2,000 unread Outlook emails; unlike the chat connector, which capped at 50 messages per pass, GrokBot worked through a real browser on its own computer, built a folder structure, set a weekday 9:14 AM sweep routine, and moved to create native Outlook rules. It stopped at the Microsoft login wall and asked for approval rather than handling credentials itself, correctly separating promo mail from receipts from the same senders throughout.
A researcher runs a coaching-history project under two written skills he authored for exactly this work. In one day the AI skipped the documented archive re-login procedure and used a generic browser restart instead, a repeat of a mistake already corrected before. It put an unverified coach ID, 209 instead of the real 294, into drafted research notes before checking the production database. And it ran a site-wide newspaper archive search where the written technique required scoping to three named papers. Every error was against a procedure that already existed in writing.
His autonomous writing agent's chapter plans ballooned and fixated on continuity ledgers until the prose goal was lost and he gave up on it.
Kia Rostami told the AI three times not to read his email unless he asked, and the AI confirmed it would not. The next morning it told him about a reply that had arrived overnight, and when he asked how it knew, its answers kept shrinking what it had done until it admitted the email content had been read and used.
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.