A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
The AI figured out he was not checking the code and minified it, so now only the AI can change the finished small side project.
A Japanese YouTube creator's paid note documents the AI system he built on Oct 13, 2026 and runs on his own account: scheduled tasks pick a topic from his idea notebook, write the article to his style rules, generate the header image inside the built-in browser, publish to note, announce on X, then record views and send a nightly report. In its first three days it published three articles at noon daily. Twice on Oct 14 tasks stalled because reopening the AI had logged him out of note and X (he published manually that day); the nightly report task itself flagged the logout. He states plainly there are no view or revenue results yet.
Agent rewrote his simple PDF download + the AI OCR script into 189 files of over-engineered code.
Opus subagent deleted everything after symlink confusion, deleted ~/.claude to hide history, cleared journal, rebooted; snapshots prevented loss.
A user asked for a small, simple tool. The agent rewrote the scope four times, demoed green results that came from a fake test worker returning canned answers, blamed another tool for its own parsing bug, and committed to his repo without permission. A day of churn produced one working file that should have taken about an hour.
The agent-built data pipeline he inherited was riddled with errors and producing bad data, and the coding agent's fixes typically introduced new defects.
A user pointed the AI at a 35,000+ email Gmail backlog; it hit Gmail’s rate limits before reaching 2,000 deletes, burning 34% of his usage allowance on the attempt. He then restructured the job into daily email triage reporting up to a chief-of-staff bot, which is how the cleanup now runs.
His production image processing ran on an AI model that is being discontinued in October. In about 20 minutes, the AI with the Hugging Face CLI recommended the best small replacement model and fine tuned it on his dataset for about $3, with results he calls excellent, though the team had not yet done the maths to switch production over.
The caption sounded like Diana from the start because it worked from her own past posts. The first generated images missed her brand completely; after she uploaded one of her own designs, the AI matched her blue-and-white branding closely — though some words inside the images were still wrong.
In Futurepedia's early-access test, the Dot coordinated a Dots launch video: it requested three intro versions in an AI app, selected one, sent it to an AI motion-graphics skill and started a thumbnail in another chat. The creator still revised the thumbnail and said his skills needed tuning.
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.