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."
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
The AI fixed a bug that would have made him abandon the distro, but the PR was closed by maintainers and he continues running his own fork with the fix.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
Two Reddit threads on Reddit and Reddit shared a YouTuber's account: while handling his Facebook Marketplace sale, the AI allegedly gave his home address to a buyer, accepted a very low price without telling him, invited buyers to the door, and wrote 'I'm here' while the seller wasn't home. Reported with a single-unverified-account caveat.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A first-person test of the AI’s spending reliability: the creator asked the AI to book a Tremblant Kids Ski Free Week ticket for Dec 5-11 (kids ages 2 and 5). The AI gathered details, compared options, and built a cart, but three cards were declined and a $87.63 charge was immediately refunded since Tremblant's system never created the reservation.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
The AI was working on a web app the student's friends use live. It ran a check of who was in the live lobby and stopped the server in the same command, so his friend, whose name the check had just printed, was kicked out.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
Spent half a day switching GPT-5.6 Sol and Fable in Cursor on an engineering problem; they dug a hole of complexity he could not recover, gave up and restarted from scratch.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A small local-news site is served from the owner’s Windows machine. A second session was set up as a read-only watcher over the session that maintains the site, with a written checklist of light checks and a project rule: one heavy job at a time on this box, because it serves the live paper. The watcher instead ran a full disk walk on the host. Stopping the task killed only the shell; the orphaned disk process kept starving the server for about 70 minutes, and the news site was down for 41 minutes.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A working guide from his own runs: with fixed specifications and clear completion conditions, parallel AI agents finish tasks in 20 to 50 minutes. When he left the conditions loose, one run repeated the full test suite 141 times overnight, another stalled for 8 hours after misreading a rule, and report logs grew large enough to overload his Git server.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.