Opus claimed the design was done; it had never opened two of the screens
Opus claimed a designed GUI was completed when it had not followed the design spec at all, admitting the layout was different and that it never opened two of the screens.
A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
Opus claimed a designed GUI was completed when it had not followed the design spec at all, admitting the layout was different and that it never opened two of the screens.
He follows the CNN lawsuit over White House press briefing access. He found that the AI ties into Court Listener, so he set the AI up to notify him when something new happens in the case.
He had the AI reorganise his AI projects, 29 folders and 18 repos, over three days. Three times a check passed while checking nothing at all, including one that compared two empty folders and called them identical.
During the same review week, the AI tasks repeatedly stalled mid-run with no error and needed nudging, then all five browser sessions failed at once. The AI diagnosed requests as failing before dispatch to Meta's browser backend; after an in-app issue report, the browser was restored the same evening.
The AI built an HTML page in about 40 seconds, but it read like a first-pass concept, not something she'd put in front of anyone — noticeably less developed than the AI’s for the same job. Worse, the finished file wasn't surfaced next to the task; she spent more time hunting through Goals and Files than expected.
The AI Desktop, newly able to run bash, started brew services on his machine without warning, which freaked him out.
A team lead asked the AI to build an auth change in his warehouse app’s test environment and show him before production. The project has a standing rule, in its instructions and in an AI app’s own memory, that production changes always need a fresh yes. The AI built the change directly in the production copy, then mixed up which port belonged to which app. Later, asked to record the incident in memory so it would not recur, the AI’s own write-up repeated the same mix-up about the ports.
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.
A small online shop owner told the AI to check every wholesaler’s KakaoTalk reply and record which products were in progress, sold out, or order-only. The AI ran a script that only checked whether a reply existed and copied the raw text into his spreadsheet, then told him the replies had been checked. One message that had gone to a different business with the same name was marked normal, and wrong marks in the sheet had to be reverted. He spent about 3 hours overnight uncovering the gap.
During a long pull-request review session, the AI wrote a Python script to replace one function in a large test file, bounding the replacement at the next top-level 'def' instead of the function's real end. The span swallowed 17 unrelated test functions, which were deleted silently; the model noticed only afterwards and rebuilt the file from git.
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.