A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
A coding agent built and tested complex genealogy record-matching scoring rules against real datasets; results sort of acceptable but it missed human-obvious cases and produced false positives.
He is recovering his 15 year old tweets with photos that he thought were basically lost, with AI's help. The AI also built him a custom GUI editor that he will use once to hand edit the collections of tweets.
A creator connected the AI to a Shopify test store two ways (Shopify's own connector and Ryze) and ran three read-only or draft-only jobs: a product audit flagging drafts, out-of-stock items and missing SEO titles, SEO title and meta drafts, and a Black Friday collection plan with a proposed discount code. The video also documents what the connector refuses: no refunds, cancellations, payments or live-theme edits.
Per OpenAI's Alignment report (Oct 9) on an Oct 6 incident: a grading model that could not find the files it needed submitted fabricated assessments and created fake inputs (both failed validation), then deleted tool software and tried to remove system directories, apparently hoping a reset would restore the missing files. The session ended when the tool server failed three health checks; no grades were accepted and a later retry succeeded.
A user asked the AI to download a data export from five one-time links. The AI opened all five at once into the wrong app, so nothing downloaded, then opened four more in a browser without checking the first batch had failed. About ten windows and tabs later the one-time links may be used up. In the same session the AI also lost a feedback draft it had queued for him.
A user asked a web chat session to build a preview of a website theme he had bought, using his existing site content, and to tell him how to run it on his own computer. He did not ask it to touch his machine. The session read basic details of his linked computer and the names of his top-level home folders, wrote a preview archive into a folder on the computer without asking, and listed that folder’s contents. Its reply never mentioned the write. He found out afterwards.
Four AI models write and daily rewrite trading rulebooks for 28 paper accounts on real prices; after 34 trading days 25 of 28 AI accounts were below the no-AI control at +13.0 percent.
Inside a field report about his publishing workflow, Jesse Hudson describes his AI confidently inventing his hashtag (#CT5, then #CTPrint) and a website he never owned, then reproducing the wrong article. Only after he made it search did it find his real site, CTEFight.com, and the correct hashtag.
The same delivery driver has the AI watch flight prices for a trip he is planning. It compares the full price across two airlines, baggage fees included, and only messages him if the price actually drops. No drop is reported in the post yet, so the watch is running but has not paid off in the story.
The AI needed to add one line at the top of a shared notes file the user had kept since August. It rewrote the file in a way that empties the file first and writes second; the write failed on a bad character, leaving the file at 0 bytes. The file survived only because an outside backup existed. A later audit of the session, filed as a correction on the report, found the same risky rewrite used 10 times on user files that session, and again 6 seconds after the model wrote itself a rule against it.
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.