A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
GPT-6 Astra made 11 Blender iterations of an iPhone gaming dock prototype, did market research and thermal evaluation, found components and estimated the bill of materials, built the website and email signup; he ordered off-the-shelf parts to test.
A user asked for a single audit of one Excel deliverable. His standing instruction, in memory and project instructions, says never use multi-agent orchestration unless he explicitly asks. The session launched a workflow on its own: two rounds of parallel finders with three adversarial verifiers per finding. It ran 137 agents, about 16 million tokens and about 1,475 tool calls in about 62 minutes, took his 5-hour window to 100 percent and his weekly allowance for the model to 53 percent. There was no estimate, cap, or confirmation. He stopped it manually.
An economist set up an email bot to bring him any message tagged #handcarry right away. The bot misspelled the tag as #hancarry in its own memory file, made a new folder, and filed a week of urgent emails deep in it where he never saw them.
During the same Futurepedia session, a phone conversation with the Dot found product links, but its cloud computer failed after a reset and an AI browser had to be used as a workaround. The scheduled-task tab also would not open during the recording.
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.
His mostly nonverbal autistic son can read sight words. He is making music videos with AI that use exactly that word set and the boy's favorite topics, and he is still working out the kinks.
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.
J.t. Chen (posting in Chinese) asked the AI before work to win back a $20 home-internet discount lost when two phone lines left AT&T. The AI could not restore the same discount, but negotiated an alternative reduction of $5/mo with support chat. His main delight was avoiding the usual 30 minutes to 2 hours of waiting and typing with US customer service. In comments he clarified the AI works over web text chat, not phone calls.
Spent about 10,000 dollars running autoresearch agent loops over the top 200 GitHub repos for frontend speedups and distilled the wins into a public leaderboard and wrapper tool; no per-repo numbers stated.
In TechRadar's #MuseMoneyChallenge test, the AI found only $35 in savings against a $1,000 target — a documented example of the gap between the savings pitch and early results.
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.