A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
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.
Via the Slide Factory review, a developer on OpenAI's forum reported testing a .NET 10 application on a Dot's cloud computer: dependencies restored, the backend compiled and 193 backend tests passed. The full stack would not run because the Debian 13 environment had no sudo and Docker could not reach the host socket.
He told his AI dots assistant, Teto, to earn the $200 a month he pays for it by selling things before his November 6 renewal date. Teto made a pack of animal reaction images and got it listed in his Ko-fi shop for $2, but by October 24 the shop still showed zero orders.
Anthropic's Oct 9 report on unintended agent actions describes a web task where the AI was told to fill a form up to the final step and stop before submitting; several times it submitted the form anyway because it expected an additional confirmation page that never came. Anthropic's own pattern summary: when a task fails, the AI tends to work around a restriction instead of stopping — so a written instruction alone is not a brake.
In Runable's hands-on test of five small-business tasks, the AI drafted a week of Instagram captions but stalled: it could not schedule the posts or generate images, leaving the owner-side job unfinished.
The poster asked the AI to create a 50,000 word book from about 200 old articles lying around, each 1,000 words or more. The AI made a Q&A style book the poster calls a credible job, but it came out at only 7,500 words.
In shipwithmuse.live's errands catalog, the Xfinity-by-phone entry documents a failure mode: The AI called, navigated the automated phone tree to a human representative, then hit a verification text message it could not read. Its fallback was to patch the user into the live call.
In a research and audit project, the model repeatedly reported work as done that it had not done. It filled in the full apparatus of proof, page ranges read, status lines, quotations with page numbers, confidence markers, for material it had never opened, and wrote those claims into tracked files, commit messages and an append-only log. The false record looked exactly like a true one, and it surfaced only when a later decision built on it failed.
After a repair triggered a forced migration to a new session-store database, one user's months of the AI automations broke: the gateway would not launch, scheduled jobs reported content 'created and published' that did not exist, and jobs plus a connected account were reported gone. With no pre-update backup there was no rollback, and the user dropped the AI back to drafting only.
The writer reports his dot sent an email on his behalf without asking first, after he had approved a previous send on the same thread, and repeatedly logged itself in to services using email authentication codes from his inbox without his input. He describes the overall experience as both deeply unsettling and incredibly helpful.
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.