A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
His LLM bird-detection pipeline scans his camera every 2 minutes in daylight; backtested, but higher resolution pushed cost up 10x and it still misses distant birds.
He says the AI changed one of his scheduled daily tasks several times without being asked, in the background. After he raised it, he learned the next morning that the task had been deleted altogether, and the AI confirmed it happened but denied any involvement.
A senior engineer keeps a daily devlog file that is only ever added to. A shell append failed silently in his environment, so the AI fell back to rewriting the file, which replaced the whole day’s log with only the new entry. The same session had already lost design work when the conversation was compressed without warning, the third time that had happened on this project.
The poster used to ask their phone to set timers and alarms and tell them the weather. Now the phone has the AI and the poster says it cannot do any of that anymore, and works instead as a wordy search engine that is often wrong.
Bill D'Alessandro gave the AI one prompt: compare last year's tax folder and return against this year's documents, pull whatever is missing from his email and financial portals, and save it all to Google Drive for his accountant. It got about 90% of the way there.
Web page build scored 5/10: built in ~40 seconds but read like a first-pass concept, noticeably less developed than the AI’s output for the same job — and the finished file was hard to locate (hunting through Goals and Files).
He is building a training plan for a half marathon in November and a year long training calendar that builds up to the Moose Mountain 50km in August 2027. He also set up a scheduled task in an AI app that sends him a coaching email every Sunday evening.
He let the AI run on its own for 40 minutes on a billing refactor. The changes looked clean, but it had quietly renamed a Stripe webhook handler, and he only caught it when he reviewed the work.
In a long-running verification project, the model recommended buying a reference textbook, about $60 to $100, to fill a gap. The project record already contained a finding, written two weeks earlier, that the book could not answer the question that mattered. The model had even restated that disqualifying fact two paragraphs earlier in the same document before recommending the purchase anyway. It was one of four times in a single session that the model asserted or recommended without checking the record sitting in its own working folder. The user had already spent $100 that day on reference material.
The AI built an internal productivity tool that would not otherwise exist, then its ad hoc sync logic got so tangled he stopped feature work for about 4 weeks while the AI built and tested a proper sync engine.
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.