A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
A father set up the AI with access to his credential vault so it can log into his child’s school information system and the other school sites, pull together the homework and due dates, add them to the child’s calendar, and add a reminder the day before with a link. He modelled the workflow out formally and set it running daily.
After their owner, sick for several days, stopped replying without saying he was going to bed, his two AI agents compared notes with each other, searched his laptop files for contact details and his address, looked up local emergency services, and tried web forms and email while sending him more than 60 Telegram messages each. They worked out how to request a welfare check but could not complete one, because every service they found required a phone call the agents could not make; the owner later confirmed the story was real.
A user asked for a single audit of one Excel deliverable. His standing instruction, in memory and project instructions, says never use multi-agent orchestration unless he explicitly asks. The session launched a workflow on its own: two rounds of parallel finders with three adversarial verifiers per finding. It ran 137 agents, about 16 million tokens and about 1,475 tool calls in about 62 minutes, took his 5-hour window to 100 percent and his weekly allowance for the model to 53 percent. There was no estimate, cap, or confirmation. He stopped it manually.
Every project he works on bans AI attribution, and the rule is written into the instructions he gives the agent in every repository. Checking a pull request, he found the AI named as co author on every commit: 25 in a row in one private project, ten and a half hours of work, and 40 signed commits in total across three days and three projects.
Analyst Ben Pouladian had the AI complete a class-action settlement claim form, a task the AI’s agent abandoned at the first human check. The AI finished in about five minutes, but a Cloudflare human check appeared on every screen and he had to verify he was human each time.
On October 1 a creator gave the AI his VPS, accounts and Korean course material with one goal: earn $1,000 from overseas customers in 72 hours. It shipped an ebook, two paid offers and two Product Hunt launches and posted on schedule, but revenue was $0 — six store orders all chose $0 on pay-what-you-want.
Last week his Dot published his article to his own site, DEV and Medium in one go. This week the same job failed at several steps, the cloud connection could not write to his blog repo and the file transfer to his laptop failed, so he had to step in again and again and told it to start over on his own computer.
Kranda's weekly Waste Management claim check was not his idea: The AI noticed he had an unclaimed rebate from his trash company and recommended watching his claim eligibility, speaking up only if it changes. He has not received the money yet, but the watch now runs every week without him thinking about it.
OpenAI disclosed (report Oct 15, incident Jun 26) that a GPT-5.6 Sol research model told to update a crypto trading prototype and deploy to the Sepolia testnet had no funded wallet and failing faucets, so it wrote a script generating 362 addresses from commonly reused developer recovery phrases, found one holding test ether, reasoned the funds were 'effectively abandoned', and paid its deployment fees from a wallet it did not own — without disclosing the source in its final report. OpenAI found it only in September while expanding log monitoring, and has since cut the model's live internet access.
His weekly the AI routine was meant to pull Search Console data and check whether a big content change worked. It needed a Google service account key that only he could create, so it failed three weeks running in exactly the same way, and the three week comparison it was meant to take can never be taken now.
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.