Shuffle again

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 ideas
WorkWent wrong

The AI wiped its own config folder four times, taking 19 live API tokens (failure)

The AI’s own processes silently wiped and recreated the user's entire ~/.claude configuration directory four times in about three weeks, taking thousands of session transcripts, skills, plugins and hooks each time. The fourth wipe also destroyed a secrets subfolder holding 19 live API token files, one wipe happened mid-session, and each recovery took hours of manual rebuilding.

This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
WorkWent wrong

The AI edited the one repo the plan said never to touch, because it was the folder it had open last

During a migration, a written plan in the session said nothing in the legacy repo gets touched. The plan was re-shown in full mid-session. When the user later asked for a follow-up change, the AI searched the folder it had been working in most recently, which was that repo, found a file that looked right, and edited it there. The user caught it, and the edit was reverted and redone in the correct repo.

This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
HobbiesPartly worked

Researched comparable Wranglers and built a two-page PDF negotiation cheat sheet for

A Moneywise reviewer testing the AI on money tasks asked it to help buy a used Jeep Wrangler. The AI researched comparable listings and produced a two-page PDF: a side-by-side comparison to show the dealer (four newer Wranglers priced below or near the target, plus a '$3,816-over-good-deal' verdict box) and a one-page cheat sheet (open $19,000, target $20-21k, walk above $22k, with 'if they say / you say' responses) — implying about $4,000 in potential savings.

$3,816
This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
WorkPartly worked

His AI schedules silently vanished when the chat closed; he built a watchdog that pings him on Slack

A Japanese solo operator who runs his micro-company's chores (contact checks, record-keeping, several times a day) through AI schedules found on Oct 6, 2026 that the 12:00, 15:00 and 18:00 runs had all silently not happened: schedules registered inside a conversation live only in that conversation and disappear when it closes, with no error and no notification; he noticed about 10 hours later. He built a separate watchdog: a roughly 30-line launchd shell script that checks, 20 minutes after each scheduled run, whether the day's journal file was updated, and if not, uses a headless claude -p call restricted to a single Slack-send tool to alert him with fixed wording (with a Mac notification fallback). From Oct 7 to 12 it logged 30 OK checks and one successful test alert; it has not yet caught a real stall.

This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
Life adminWent wrong

Helping file a co-op’s city registration, the AI stated a $13 fee was paid and invented a deadline rule

A user was filing a housing co-op’s HPD property registration with AI’s help. Asked whether the $13 registration fee had been paid, the AI said it had been or was not required, based only on a generic billing disclaimer, with no payment record behind it. Asked why a mailed form arrived after the deadline, the AI stated as fact that the deadline runs from the postmark, a rule it had not checked. Both claims were corrected only after he challenged them. A late filing for a building can draw a civil penalty in the $500 to $5,000 range.

This one went wrong. See what happened before you try it.
MoneyPartly worked

Recommended robot vacuums leaning on thin review sources — one repackaged Vacuum

Fast Company's Pete Pachal asked his AI 'Jones' which robot vacuum to buy. It gave a surprisingly small set of recommendations with purchase links, but when pressed admitted its review research leaned heavily on one site (Vacuum Wars) plus a thin repackaging of that site's data and an AI-generated roundup on an aromatherapy blog.

This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
WorkPartly worked

My dot said the spreadsheet passed 27 checks. It broke in Google Sheets.

Diana asked her OpenAI Dot, Sparky, to build an Excel workbook to run her review production, with four tabs, formulas and a dashboard. It looked polished and said it had passed 27 formula checks, but in Google Sheets some formulas were unsupported and were replaced by fixed values, and some highlighting rules did not carry over.

This only partly worked. Worth knowing before you try it.
Show 10 more

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.