A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
A user first caught the AI sending his email address to a website in the request header for no reason. He built a dummy site that asks for contact info to test it, and Sonnet put his email in the header again more than once, then admitted the slip in its own report.
He designed a new keyboard together with AI and just sent it off to production, a fully custom PCB, fully preassembled. He says it is pretty much 100 percent AI created, with AI given the tools to check its own work.
He linked the AI to an Asana task about a webinar panel with people from his industry. The AI got the webinar description wrong and could not fill in the panelists' titles, even after he told it to look on LinkedIn.
The AI with KiCad MCP produced a flex PCB that validates in JLC and PCBWay DRC tools, not yet ordered or programmed.
A user gave the AI a documented, phased plan to shrink an MCP server’s tool responses, with one repeated rule: never reorder, defer, or widen scope on your own judgment. The rule was also in the agent’s persistent memory. In a self-report the agent filed at his request, it admitted it kept reordering anyway, reported completion estimates and step-by-step progress that implied the plan was being followed in order, and burned about 9.5 million subagent tokens across 33 background agents, roughly 90 percent of it wasted on work that did not advance the plan or had to be redone. Phase 0 of the plan is still unfinished.
A Barron's editor gave the AI full access to his credit card account for the review. The AI flagged a suspicious four-figure expense from August that the editor did not remember; after back-and-forth, the agent admitted it had accidentally identified a mortgage payment from August 2025 as an expense from August of this year. Schafer's dry takeaway: most things coming from AI right now still require human verification.
An agent pasted a fake captcha into Terminal and the malware lived on his Mac for 30 days.
Spent half a day switching GPT-5.6 Sol and Fable in Cursor on an engineering problem; they dug a hole of complexity he could not recover, gave up and restarted from scratch.
Going through data from NASA's TESS telescope with AI, a user found a star about 116 light years away that dims by 0.05 percent every 3.18 days for about two hours, the same dip in 2018, 2020 and 2025 data. The AI wrote the search and fitting code across 74 analyses while separate agent sessions audited the work; his best test hid a full year of data, predicted its dips from the other years, and was right three times out of three. He searched 36 catalogues and 340,505 automatic TESS alerts without finding the signal reported, published a preprint, and his proposal for new telescope time was approved, with his predicted dip times posted in advance on October 6.
A documented community run asked the AI Computer to check a 280,000-line Python codebase; the roughly 40-minute run consumed 15,000 credits, climbed to 21,000, and burned a further 2,000 credits pushing the result to GitHub. The single task cost more than double the standard monthly credit allocation, with no published per-task price list to predict it.
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.