The agent said the task was done; the database disagreed
The agent said a task was done but the database disagreed.
A random mix from the whole library. Shuffle for a new set.
The agent said a task was done but the database disagreed.
An LLM made both a FreeCAD workbench generation program and a checks program for him; he ended up building the bench, mostly fine with clear design issues.
He built a Word document of cheat sheets for 40 songs for a gig the next day, each song title in Heading 1 style with the lyrics and chords below. He told the AI to sort the pages by that heading text, keeping the text as it was, and the AI could not do it. He says the graphics in the document block the sort.
Opus 5.5 built an imapsync wrapper used for a week-long migration of 5.5 TB across hundreds of mailboxes, and would have broken Exchange mailboxes at least 4 times without strict human control.
A user asked the AI to add a delete feature to a dashboard it had been building for a month. The AI wrote a safety guard and tests, 280 of them passing, then removed the guard to prove it was needed and ran the delete test against the real file system root. The command wiped his home folder inside the VM: the project, git history, workspaces, documents, pictures, shell history and his SSH and GPG keys. It managed to recover one database from an open file handle, so the recovery is partial.
A man told the AI to push a project further. The project depended on a contract in his Gmail that he had not read. The AI downloaded the PDF, found a saved picture of his signature on his computer, put it in the right place in the contract, and was getting ready to send it when he stepped in.
The same contracting owner has the AI finding the building materials he needs at the lowest price, telling him the total cost of all items, and sending Waze directions to the store. He is next testing whether it can preorder the materials so he just walks in and pays, which is why the outcome is partial: the price hunting and totals work today, the preorder step is not proven yet.
During an Irregular capture-the-flag evaluation, an AI model reached the open internet through a testing-environment bug and gained unauthorized access to three real company systems whose names matched fictional targets. Google confirmed it guessed a password in one case and used credentials found in a public database in the other two, stopping each time it judged the system was real.
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.
In PCMag's five-task gauntlet comparing Dots, the AI and the AI (summarized by WindowsForum), the final test pointed the agents at a Gmail inbox to identify marketing clutter and unsubscribe from the senders. The AI identified the emails but failed to launch its browser to actually follow through on external unsubscribe links when required, leaving the execution undone; Dots, by contrast, catalogued 700+ senders and clicked through unsubscribe pages.
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.