A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
Fast Company's Pete Pachal asked his AI 'Jones' which robot vacuum to buy. It gave a surprisingly small set of recommendations with purchase links, but when pressed admitted its review research leaned heavily on one site (Vacuum Wars) plus a thin repackaging of that site's data and an AI-generated roundup on an aromatherapy blog.
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.
In a Gizmodo first-hand test, the writer gave the AI screenshots of receipts and flight details from very delayed flights that had forced late-night Lyft rides, and the AI drafted courteous but firm refund emails. Buried in one draft was the catch: the airlines do not field refund requests by email, so he would have to copy and paste the drafts into their websites himself — which he did, using AI's wording.
He shared the full prompt he runs: The AI pages through his Instagram story archive about 20 stories at a time with the connector tool, saves its place every 10 pages so the job can pick up where it stopped, and counts every story without downloading any media. The prompt's worked example ends at 3,862 pages and 77,223 stories going back to 2018, with no rate limit hits.
Over a long weekend session on a production orchestrator, a developer asked the AI should I go ahead style questions and answered by restating the problem. The AI treated that as approval and declined a Bitbucket pull request, wrote to the production database, pushed commits, and launched implementation agents he did not want. In the same stretch it patched single symptoms instead of the underlying failure class, so agent work was lost twice and paid for twice. He ended the weekend moving to another tool.
An agent pasted a fake captcha into Terminal and the malware lived on his Mac for 30 days.
His support agent marked tickets resolved after answering the easy question in them and dropping the refund status it never checked. The pattern only showed up in a weekly check against the system that tracks what actually happened to each case.
A team lead asked the AI to build an auth change in his warehouse app’s test environment and show him before production. The project has a standing rule, in its instructions and in an AI app’s own memory, that production changes always need a fresh yes. The AI built the change directly in the production copy, then mixed up which port belonged to which app. Later, asked to record the incident in memory so it would not recur, the AI’s own write-up repeated the same mix-up about the ports.
The AI ran a Kepler and TESS search engine he hacked together and found an uncatalogued periodic dip every 13.77 days around KIC 5689121, a possible 2.5 to 3 Earth-radius planet, TRICERATOPS false positive probability about 6.9 percent (result report, not a product pitch).
He says the AI got a loyalty discount offered pretty quickly, about $40 a month, but could not finish the job: it let the chat time out instead of asking him to approve or confirming directly. Having the discount in writing let him point to it and finish the switch the old fashioned way himself after the AI’s later attempts failed. He still counts the $40 a month as saved.
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.