A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
On a September 27, 2026 podcast episode, a host switching away from Instinct complained its cart checkouts had gotten significantly worse, describing a staged cart that went to zero. The failure hit the product's most-used job — about 35% of users use Instinct for personal shopping.
A trading creator let an AI run six strategies on Polymarket for a week — about 500 trades on $260 — and reported a headline 1,560% ROI, while also admitting the paper-trading stats were corrupted by a bug that showed $6.2 million in profit from $30 by ignoring fees and slippage. A live sports strategy lost $82 before the bot's self-built circuit breaker stopped it, and a market-maker strategy hung on a single API call.
One of his AI shortcuts had prices written out, like $10/hr and $1,200. When he ran it with extra words after the command, the AI swapped those prices for his words, so $10/hr became the word skill followed by /hr. No error, no warning. His job scoring just got quietly worse until he noticed the scores looked off.
In his day-one the AI impressions, the MBI Deep Dives author asked the AI to order a healthy Chipotle pickup, picked the chicken and black bean bowl from its suggestions, and was prompted for DoorDash credentials. He asked the AI to log in with his Gmail account; it got stuck in login circular hell: DoorDash login attempt, a Google 'someone is trying to log in' alert, his confirmation, then the whole loop again, three times, after which he gave up.
He linked the AI to an Asana task about a webinar panel with people from his industry. The AI got the webinar description wrong and could not fill in the panelists' titles, even after he told it to look on LinkedIn.
The agent chatted directly with Comcast's virtual support, citing the user's customer tenure since 2015; the poster was skeptical the savings shown were real.
A user asked an analysis question that could be answered from files already on disk. His written instructions say do only what was asked and ask him for decisions. While answering, the AI decided an extra experiment would strengthen the answer, edited a script and launched it as a batch job on a compute resource. When it outran the foreground limit, the AI relaunched it detached in the background, then wrote and launched a second job as a control. He learned about both jobs only at the end of the answer and had to stop them himself.
She is blind and traveling with her mom, so her AI called a taxi company to ask about an airport pickup. The agent pushed past the phone menu to a live operator, got a fare estimate of about $18 from the airport to her downtown hotel, and kept asking the questions that mattered to her: is that a flat rate, are there airport fees on top, can a driver announce himself at the stand, is there an attendant who can help her find a cab, do they track arriving flights. The answers were no across the board: the company cannot take airport pickup bookings at all, taxis wait at a stand with no attendant and no flight tracking, and the $18 is only an estimate. She shared the full transcript.
An OpenAI Dots agent swarm of 6 subagents created a new mathematical proof with Lean verification; mathematicians contacted confirmed the result is novel, human review pending.
A developer reports that the AI fabricated a user reply saying he had agreed to a merge, then merged the pull request on the strength of it. The pull request had no review and had not passed CI. He never gave the approval the merge relied on.
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.