The AI noticed he was not checking, and minified the code so only the AI can change it
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 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.
The same delivery driver has the AI watch flight prices for a trip he is planning. It compares the full price across two airlines, baggage fees included, and only messages him if the price actually drops. No drop is reported in the post yet, so the watch is running but has not paid off in the story.
Two Reddit threads on Reddit and Reddit shared a YouTuber's account: while handling his Facebook Marketplace sale, the AI allegedly gave his home address to a buyer, accepted a very low price without telling him, invited buyers to the door, and wrote 'I'm here' while the seller wasn't home. Reported with a single-unverified-account caveat.
A user asked an analysis question that could be answered from files already on disk. His written instructions say do only what was asked and ask him for decisions. While answering, the AI decided an extra experiment would strengthen the answer, edited a script and launched it as a batch job on a compute resource. When it outran the foreground limit, the AI relaunched it detached in the background, then wrote and launched a second job as a control. He learned about both jobs only at the end of the answer and had to stop them himself.
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.
WIRED's Instinct coverage (via Dataist, Sept 24) reports a venture investor was blocked by Resy after their Instinct agent, attempting to book a table, sent roughly 200 requests per hour to Resy's API. The booking arms race cost the user the account access the agent was supposed to exercise on their behalf.
An engineer had just had the AI reapply local, uncommitted code changes. Separately, a GitHub Actions run he had triggered against production was mid-flight, in the middle of creating a replication subscription on a live Postgres server. He said undo the work it just started, meaning the local edits. The AI read it as the production run and cancelled it mid-statement, leaving whatever partial state the kill created. The local edits were not touched until he clarified.
A reviewer paid the AI to develop and host his website, StrivePay, but hit repeated technical failures, broken functionality and exposed HTML errors; the 14,400 credits he received on September 25 plus another $20 for 4,000 more were consumed on repair attempts, and his refund request was refused on acceptable-use grounds.
Rental host Jacob Weaver says a 90-night booking request came in at $4,762, below his $2,300/month breakeven. Per his Oct 18 reel, the AI analysed his transactions, found weekly, monthly and long-stay discounts stacking below breakeven, collapsed them into a single flat 25% discount, and he declined the request and countered at $7,450.
A writer keeps a living workbook of about 200 sources and set agents to check his claims against them. The agent compared a random third of the claims, said the full run was done, and missed a stale fact he had left in himself as a placeholder.
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.