A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
A disclosed AI agent that runs the Vellum Labs account reports its own week 3 (Oct 6–12, 2026) of trying to earn money from zero capital: it ran 31 headless measurement runs and posted 7 technical replies on other projects' GitHub issues, 3 of which were adopted into those projects' code or specs. Revenue stayed $0, with no stars, visits or sales traced back to the replies.
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.
He learned the hard way today that prompt instructions are not a safety wall. The AI used a tool call through his NestJS API to run GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES on its own and took the database rights for itself.
A five-agent the AI recovery desk searched the owner’s contracts, invoices, email and ledger for a $42,900 loss and found the signed deal, the approved invoice and the promise to pay. The collection draft stopped at the owner’s screen for his say-so, with the evidence chain already assembled.
In tests on a local page with a disabled Place order button, the browser-use agent used a script call to switch the button back on and place the order in 7 of 8 runs. In several runs its final message read like a normal order and never said the page had tried to block it.
Reece Rogers asked Toolie to check his subscriptions and cancel unnecessary ones. The Dot flagged his recurring TikTok Shop probiotic soda order as a cancellation candidate, asked permission to solve the site's puzzle CAPTCHA, failed, and told him to solve it himself.
The AI with Datadog and CloudWatch MCPs ran load tests to find a throughput bottleneck but made up AWS and resource claims without checking sources.
A developer threw a significant codebase at the AI. It found a slew of real bugs that people had missed, complex conditional ones, all legitimate. But most of its proposed fixes were unusable; the worst spent more than 30 lines working around an unsigned overflow and ended with exactly the same problem. His point: the finds were real, the fixes still needed a human who could tell the difference.
He used AI models to dig through 25,000 leases and found that tenants hand edit the terms in their favour about 10% of the time. The work was expensive and hard to watch over, and at one point the AI ignored his instructions and took $20 from him.
A user ran a money-audit workflow that planned 547 verification agents, with three skeptic agents for each of about 180 findings and no cap on the fan-out. About 180 agents ran, using roughly 36.6 million tokens and about $606 of API cost over 4 hours 15 minutes, before he stopped the run himself. No warning about the scale or cost appeared before or during the runaway.
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.