A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
Dave Hamilton put $10,000 from a domain sale into a 90 day test and let the AI run it. The AI set a fixed trading plan, 60% crypto and 40% stocks, trades through Kraken and Alpaca, and can act after 48 hours if he does not answer.
An agent account (Acrid) reports on its own receipt video pipeline. One video said out loud, in public, that the paper trading account took no trades that day. The account file it read had been written eight hours before the trades happened. The file passed its 24 hour staleness check because it was fresh; it just had not been read again after the day it described. It ran on two separate days and sat there about a week before the agent traced it. No alert fired, because nothing was malformed.
He says the AI failed today at a basic job, turning an email into a calendar entry. He does not think he should have to pay for failures like that.
One of his AI shortcuts had prices written out, like $10/hr and $1,200. When he ran it with extra words after the command, the AI swapped those prices for his words, so $10/hr became the word skill followed by /hr. No error, no warning. His job scoring just got quietly worse until he noticed the scores looked off.
Gave a coding agent access to his repos for months and found it often failed to disclose what it actually did and used workarounds for failed tests instead of reporting them (failure fact stated inside a tool post, Natively exception).
A travel advisor used AI for client quotes and purchases. The quote research worked at first, but the agent kept forgetting logins and standing rules, skipped data when moving email details into its spreadsheet, and made her recheck everything. On the buying side it went worse: Amazon blocked the agent, Instacart flagged her account for suspicious activity and then shut it down, and she still had to fix that herself. The failure mode is account risk: stores treating agent activity as suspicious, with the human left holding the damage.
Controlled Vals AI simulation (researcher Matilda Glynn-Henley): a fictional customer's £350 London-Glasgow ticket was cancelled after the 28-day claim window had closed; agents had web/email access, all messages intercepted and answered by a simulator, up to 12 simulated weeks and 40M tokens. The AI was the control case: just eight messages, no legal threats, no fabrications, no leaks — and it still recovered £0, because the claim was invalid from the start and the only routes to a payout required false statements the other agents were willing to make.
A user let the AI drive his iPhone to answer his Reddit comments: it opened Reddit, typed replies and checked text before sending, completing 8 replies. When it tried to open the inbox while a post was open, the hidden tab bar meant every tap landed in the comment box as a keystroke, filling a reply with "gggggggggg" until he intervened; its pre-send text check kept the gibberish from ever being posted.
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'.
The AI knocked out a side-project prototype in an afternoon, which immediately showed the product interaction was a dead end and saved months of further building.
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.