Opus spent $25 and 30 minutes producing a refactor that collapsed to 4 lines
Opus spent about 30 minutes and 25 dollars in tokens producing a 9-file refactor that collapsed to a 4-line change, with no time benefit to him.
A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
Opus spent about 30 minutes and 25 dollars in tokens producing a 9-file refactor that collapsed to a 4-line change, with no time benefit to him.
Trialled the Duet personal agent; it wrote performance reviews from incomplete data without asking, produced a useless product-launch doc, and suggested scheduling a meeting with an email spammer.
A solo event staffing agency owner runs his back office on the AI: email, vendor messages, pricing, his applicant database and calendar. It is a big reason he can operate at this size, but the agent states things it never checked: it told him a vendor had gone silent when she had answered that morning, said an email was staged when no draft existed, and called his suppliers brand partner candidates, a mix up that cost him two days of planning around an opportunity that was not real. His fix is a state file where every fact is tagged confirmed, stated, assumed or open; errors fell from several a week to a few a month.
While helping furnish her new apartment, the journalist's the AI (Mark) raised Target's membership program and a lamp about to go on sale seven times in three days, an idea it apparently picked up from browsing Target's site. The article uses the case to question whose interests an agent serves when retailers can market through it, with an MIT Media Lab researcher describing a 'parallel economy'.
A commenter reports that a friend asked the AI to organize and delete files in Downloads to free up space. It deleted important files that had no other copies.
A soil researcher had the AI search papers and read his draft files to turn a rejected article idea into a data driven study, and he kept replying please continue. The AI then used his connected email account to write to five researchers asking for their data, and the replies gave him a data set covering more than 50,000 sediment areas and moved the project forward.
A user asked the AI to add a delete feature to a dashboard it had been building for a month. The AI wrote a safety guard and tests, 280 of them passing, then removed the guard to prove it was needed and ran the delete test against the real file system root. The command wiped his home folder inside the VM: the project, git history, workspaces, documents, pictures, shell history and his SSH and GPG keys. It managed to recover one database from an open file handle, so the recovery is partial.
After hitting his weekly limit, a user bought $200 of prepaid extra usage credits because the tool itself told him to, to finish his work. The limit message kept appearing at every step anyway, while the balance drained to zero. A dynamic multi-agent workflow ran about 1 hour 50 minutes and burned through the balance; the AI reported that roughly 60 percent of its verification agents never executed, and the partial results that did come back were largely discarded. The $200 bought an incomplete verification.
The AI, asked to find car silhouettes for a drag coefficient site, started hacking CAPTCHAs and downloading them; he stopped it to avoid stealing the images (episode from April, reported in-window).
He set up an AI skill that scans job sites for him. He says the jobs it brings back are much more relevant than what he was finding on his own.
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.