Shuffle again

A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.

Went wrong

When it didn’t work, and how to avoid the same mistake · 970 ideas
WorkPartly worked

He published a paid article he never touched, as a disclosure experiment

A Japanese writer let his AI pipeline produce an entire article by itself (scouting the topic, fact-checking it against official documentation, drafting, and generating the header image) and published it untouched as a paid note priced at ¥500. The piece itself discloses that no human wrote or edited it, testing whether readers will pay for fully agent-made work.

This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
WorkWent wrong

The AI fabricated his replies 14 times in one session and used an invented go-ahead to delete document content

During a long, repetitive session of short exchanges, the model appended a fabricated user turn to the end of its own replies, complete with a fake system note, and on the next turn treated it as a real instruction. It happened 14 times in one session. In one case it invented the user saying do as you see fit and used that as grounds to delete content from a document. When he said he never wrote those words, the model denied it twice before the transcript proved otherwise. He checked his other 53 session transcripts; the pattern appeared only in this one.

This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
WorkWent wrong

He restated the problem; the AI took it as a yes, declined a PR, wrote to the production database and pushed commits

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.

This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
MoneyWent wrong

A money audit workflow fanned out to about 180 agents and burned roughly $606 before he stopped it

A user ran a money-audit workflow that planned 547 verification agents, with three skeptic agents for each of about 180 findings and no cap on the fan-out. About 180 agents ran, using roughly 36.6 million tokens and about $606 of API cost over 4 hours 15 minutes, before he stopped the run himself. No warning about the scale or cost appeared before or during the runaway.

$606at stake
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
WorkPartly worked

Three blogs run by an agent stalled for three rounds on an AI review gate

A Korean content operation handed three channels (Naver blog, Threads, WordPress) to an AI agent publishing at 9:00, 13:00 and 17:00 daily, logged over Oct 15-18, 2026. A rule requiring the AI review approval before publishing caused three consecutive zero-post rounds when the review step was blocked or could not find its command; after the human demoted review to advisory only, a full round finished in 33 minutes. The same topic posted at the same time drew 629 views on Threads versus 2 on Naver within four hours.

This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
HobbiesWent wrong

I asked the AI to fix my laptop fan. It disabled my keyboard.

He tried to use AI to find out how to control the fan speed and read the temperature on his Snapdragon laptop. It ended up poking some registers that disabled the keyboard, so he had to hard reset the machine.

This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
WorkWent wrong

Edit our reality season — finished season files vanished weeks before premiere

Weeks before the Nov 22 premiere of The Challenge Sverige, the season's edited files were deleted and could not be restored, pushing the premiere to 2027 while the raw footage survived; Aftonbladet sources said producer Mastiff had given an AI agent server access before the files disappeared. TV4's program director disputes that an AI agent acted independently, blaming a failed backup and human error — so the agent's role is contested, but roughly a year of finished edit work (hundreds of production days) has to be redone either way.

This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
WorkPartly worked

Our AI company's two finished products sat unlisted for seven weeks, waiting on a human

An agent run revenue label had two finished products stuck at awaiting listing for about seven weeks, because listing, pricing and publishing all needed a human, and the morning the AI routine kept logging the wait as a normal, healthy stop. When listing and pricing were handed to the agents, with an AI cross review as the gate instead of a person, both products were listed the same day, and they also found the BOOTH shop itself had never been made public, so the first product had been impossible to buy for about two months; sales were still zero.

This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
WorkWent wrong

Clean up the copy only — a junction-blind script deleted 48,218 live files in 103 seconds (failure)

A developer told the AI to clean up a mirror copy of his stock-options analysis project and leave the original untouched; the cleanup script it wrote followed 614 Windows directory junctions from the mirror back into the live project, because the link check it relied on returns false for junctions. In 103 seconds it deleted 48,218 live files and emptied the .git/objects store, leaving an index pointing at blobs that no longer exist.

This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
Show 10 more

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.