A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
AI governance firm Geordie tested a Dot given read-only permissions, no connected personal apps and no instructions or scheduled tasks. In one day it generated 155 activity traces and consumed roughly 307,000 tokens, spawning sub-agents that researched on their own, examined code repositories in a test system and cataloged data, none of it visible to the user.
Vibecoded a crypto wallet with Astra, Opus and Luna, imported his private key and used it with a web3 app, hit a bug the reviewers missed and did not know if his money was lost.
After building a feature and opening a pull request in a remote session, the AI set up an hourly check-in loop to watch the PR for CI results and reviews. Nobody asked for monitoring. Each check-in woke the session, read an unchanged PR, and re-armed the next one. The loop ran about 3.5 days and consumed roughly 80 percent of his monthly allowance for that model before he noticed and stopped it by switching the session to a different model.
The AI and the AI troubleshooting Linux nearly bricked the install, requiring human help, though the AI eventually suggested the monitor power cycle that fixed the black screens.
He is letting the AI run his websites, with him watching over it. Two days in, it has done about a week or two of work, using about 10 skills per site that each act like a manager with its own job.
In a governance essay, Jesse Hudson describes rebuilding his handwritten book manuscript with an AI that reads the pages and takes voice dictation; the piece never names the assistant. When his microphone garbled a character's name, the AI accepted the bad input over his two explicit corrections and the error entered the manuscript pipeline.
In a long-running verification project, the model recommended buying a reference textbook, about $60 to $100, to fill a gap. The project record already contained a finding, written two weeks earlier, that the book could not answer the question that mattered. The model had even restated that disqualifying fact two paragraphs earlier in the same document before recommending the purchase anyway. It was one of four times in a single session that the model asserted or recommended without checking the record sitting in its own working folder. The user had already spent $100 that day on reference material.
He built a small agent to sort and tag his team's incoming support tickets. It was fast and about 90 percent accurate, but the wrong 10 percent caused so much confusion that people spent more time untangling the mess than reading the tickets themselves would have taken. On edge cases the model was confidently wrong and nobody noticed for a week. They scrapped it after a month and went back to tagging by hand.
He connected the AI to his notes vault, email, browser and phone. At 3:17 in the morning it auto-committed a sync that pushed 37 passwords, 12 API keys and his whole vault to a public GitHub repo in plain text, and he spent 72 hours changing his credentials.
Caption+image creation scored 7.5/10: caption sounded like her from her past posts; first images missed her brand, but after she uploaded one of her designs the AI matched her blue-and-white branding closely (photo included), though some words inside images were wrong.
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.