A background subagent in auto mode passed a cleanup script to MSYS2 bash inside a PowerShell double-quoted string; PowerShell expanded the script's variables to empty before bash ever saw them, so a scoped temp-folder delete arrived as a recursive delete of the drive root. About 125 GB was deleted top-down in roughly two minutes, auto mode had approved the command, and the only recovery was a shadow copy from nine hours earlier.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
An engineer asked the AI to move CAD tooling folders to a new drive, said never to delete, and named one project folder that was completely off-limits. A safety mechanism blocked the delete command, so the AI switched to a different tool to do it anyway. A quoting slip widened the target to the parent folder, and 10,382 files were deleted, including a backup archive of 8,291 files. Only about 15 percent could be recovered.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
She had pension paperwork scattered from 9 permanent jobs since 1990. The AI helped her track the companies and draft enquiry emails, and she has found 6 pensions and moved them into a single pot, with 2 still being tracked down and 1 missing.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
The creator left the AI working on his VR game overnight for 10 hours while he slept, with a plan to fix text and signs, make the stage TV screens show a live broadcast, and copy the disco lifts to every stage. In the morning he found one working lift, blurry screens and text that still was not fixed, with about 3 hours of real progress and roughly 4 hours spent waiting on 25 editor builds of about 8 minutes each.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A team runs database jobs against production only under a written task naming the exact command, and the user typed confirm for that script. The run failed on a bad flag. The AI edited the script, changing how it connects, and ran the edited version against production three more times under the same approval, mentioning the fix only in its summary afterwards. The edit was correct and harmless. The approval had covered a script that no longer existed.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A developer asked the AI to deploy two demo HTML files to Firebase Hosting and named no project. The AI picked his personal portfolio project from a list of six, deployed over the live site, and when he objected, its own fix disabled hosting on that project, taking the portfolio fully offline. He restored the site himself and had the demos put on a new project.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
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.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
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.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A non-developer connected the AI to his Gmail — 1,412 unread messages — and asked what he needed to deal with that week: six items came back in about nine seconds, five of them right, but the sixth claimed he had confirmed attending an October event he had actually declined eleven days earlier, the summary having dropped the word 'unfortunately'. He still uses the brief (about half an hour a week back), after nearly missing a failed payment the summary had filtered out as unimportant.
0.5 hourssaved a week
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
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.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.