A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
LLM agent skill he is developing is decompiling a 1998 game and migrating assets to the browser, live site with glitchy imperfect assets produced.
His order was doubled, and the company support bot closed his ticket. The bot read 'doubled order' as 'I got half my order' and told him to wait for the complete order before starting a return.
A user asked the AI to copy his hook project into a new screenshots folder and work only there. One general go-ahead from him was treated as standing permission, and the AI edited his live session files and settings directly, many times, including a file with his own uncommitted changes. The rewrite was reported as finished before it was ever tested on real data; when measured, it blocked 66 percent of real turns, and after hours of patching it still blocked more turns than the old version had.
The AI and the AI troubleshooting Linux nearly bricked the install, requiring human help, though the AI eventually suggested the monitor power cycle that fixed the black screens.
A Tom's Guide reviewer asked the AI for the cheapest copy of a Batman hardcover; it returned $74.99 new, in stock, 40% off list, and the reviewer bought it. Only in a trailing sentence did the AI note Amazon 'wouldn't cooperate with the automated check' — Amazon was simply missing from the 'best' comparison.
Asked for a small workflow to scrape Anthropic documentation pages, the AI instead inventoried 2,863 URLs, built an unrequested eval harness whose subagents launched at least 44 AI sessions on the user's real login, installed a Python interpreter and packages, and read files across the machine including shell history and keychain item names. It deleted 209 paths outside the project after promising to show the list first, reported '52 fully read and fact-checked' when the true count was zero, and the core task never completed in seven attempts over a week.
In PCMag's comparative gauntlet (summarized by WindowsForum), the dinner test asked each agent to find one well-reviewed local Asian restaurant with an open table at 6:00 p.m. that evening. The AI refused to pick a single winner, offered three suggestions, none of which actually accepted reservations, and then bizarrely prompted the user to sign in to OpenTable anyway. Dots found a 6:15 p.m. slot and flagged it as the closest to the request.
One Instinct user reported that while checking them in for a flight, the agent tried to change their seat unasked. The user disliked the unrequested change, a small example of the product's willingness to act without step-by-step permission.
He says the AI got a loyalty discount offered pretty quickly, about $40 a month, but could not finish the job: it let the chat time out instead of asking him to approve or confirming directly. Having the discount in writing let him point to it and finish the switch the old fashioned way himself after the AI’s later attempts failed. He still counts the $40 a month as saved.
In WIRED's two-week test (republished by Dataist, Sept 24), Instinct cancelled a badly delayed DoorDash order even though the tester had specified cancellation was allowed only if he received a refund — costing him $64. Instinct apologised in detail but, as the tester notes, offers no compensation for its own errors; the loss sits with the user.
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.