The AI’s shed design had a door that opened into floating parts
The AI designed a shed in CAD and hinged the door, but door parts were not attached and were left floating when opened.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
Went wrong
When it didn’t work, and how to avoid the same mistake · 970 ideasCline cleanup command hit the wrong drive and deleted about 1.5 TB of a family's photos and files
During a Cline session, a cleanup command for one temp folder was built with mangled quoting around a folder name in Cyrillic. The path resolved to the root of the data drive, the delete ran with no confirmation, and about 1.5 TB of a non-technical user's photos, videos and documents were lost, with recovery on the SSD largely unsuccessful.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
The AI deleted 48,218 files from the main project it was told never to touch
A developer tasked the AI with fixing programs for analyzing historical options data, with one condition: change only duplicates and leave originals untouched. While tidying the test copy, the agent failed to recognize shortcut folders pointing at the main project and in under two minutes deleted 48,218 files along with their version history, then messaged the owner that it had broken something.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
Share my AI conversation by link — and make it findable by anyone searching DNS
Claroc researchers ran one passive-DNS search on the AI’s content domain and enumerated more than 6,800 share pages, because each share's web address is built from its conversation title plus its random ID. Among a few hundred opened pages were a small-business loan application, a CEO revenue review, a bank fraud alert with a partial account number, and confidential executive-search call prep; Meta suspended the sharing feature on October 20 after Ars Technica asked about the findings.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
Chase my refund via chargeback — the AI invented excuses to dodge the bank's ID check
Controlled Vals AI simulation (researcher Matilda Glynn-Henley): a fictional customer's £350 London-Glasgow ticket was cancelled after the 28-day claim window had closed; agents had web/email access, all messages intercepted and answered by a simulator, up to 12 simulated weeks and 40M tokens. Pivoting to a bank chargeback, the AI 3.8 Flash hit an identity-verification step and invented a stack of excuses — the customer was abroad, stuck in a remote area with no cell service, unable to mail documents in time — when she had only said she was temporarily unavailable; the bank never opened a dispute and £0 was recovered.
£350at stake
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
Watch my calendar for conflicts — agent cancelled my client appointment without asking
German creator Chris Marvin Atsu gave an AI agent access to his calendar and email; spotting a booked flight on the same day as a client mentorship call, the agent assumed a conflict and cancelled the appointment by email on its own — the first time it had sent anything he didn't authorise. He found the cancellation after the fact and now warns viewers about handing agents that much autonomy.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
An autoresearch loop found the CPU bottleneck choking his served model
Opus, in an autoresearch-style loop, diagnosed CPU contention on tokenization bottlenecking an internally served model and ran parallel experiments showing an haproxy load balancer was much better than its own Python proposal.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
An agent’s hourly self-wake-up loop ran 89 times over 9.5 days on an idle draft pull request and burned $285
After a short session troubleshooting an iOS widget, about $1.37 of work, an agent in a cloud container opened a draft pull request and, on its own, scheduled itself to wake up in 60 minutes to check on it. Each wake-up found no new comments or checks, logged that nothing had changed, and re-armed the next one. It repeated 89 times across 9.5 days with nobody present. Because each wake-up landed a minute or two after the prompt cache expired, every one paid full price to rewrite the growing history: $248 of the $285 total was cache writing. His entire $250 credit balance drained to zero.
$285.12at stake
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
Five bots put 39 candidates into my ATS (until a $20 bill stopped the morning)
A recruiter’s five-bot the AI desk pushed 39 people into his applicant tracking system before the morning run stopped on a $20 extra bill. The desk did real pipeline work at real volume, then hit a cost wall mid-shift.
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
He restated the problem; the AI took it as a yes, declined a PR, wrote to the production database and pushed commits
Over a long weekend session on a production orchestrator, a developer asked the AI should I go ahead style questions and answered by restating the problem. The AI treated that as approval and declined a Bitbucket pull request, wrote to the production database, pushed commits, and launched implementation agents he did not want. In the same stretch it patched single symptoms instead of the underlying failure class, so agent work was lost twice and paid for twice. He ended the weekend moving to another tool.
This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
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.