First-person posts: person hired for documentation and marketing copy says employer rejected their work daily because ChatGPT called it poor, then fired them
In three linked Bluesky posts on 18 October 2026, written in answer to another user's call for stories of short job tenures, a person writes that a man hired them on the strength of years of experience to work on his company's documentation and public-facing marketing copy, and that he then rejected their work day after day because ChatGPT had told him it was not good. The poster attributes ChatGPT's verdicts to hallucinated errors. The poster says that after they told him and the marketing manager at a Friday meeting that this could not continue and that they would leave unless their skills and experience were respected, they were out by Monday morning, fired by email, and that he had paid them for two months of work upfront. The poster dates the events to 2023. The posts do not quote ChatGPT's output or say how the poster knew what it said, and the employer's account is not recorded. The account is uncorroborated.
- AI system
- ChatGPT (reported)
- Occurred
- 2023
- Reported
- 18 October 2026
- Event location
- Unknown
- What the AI did
- Informed a human decision about the person
- Reported harm
- Professional Harm
- Whose AI use
- Someone else’s AI use
- Setting
- Work
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account
- 5 claims: 5 reported. 5 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: ChatGPT, which by the poster's account the employer consulted about the quality of the poster's documentation and marketing copy
What Happened
The rejections. The poster writes: "a guy hired me to work on his company's documentation and public facing marketing copy based on my years and years of experience. he then rejected my work day in and day out because chatgpt had told him it wasn't good because of hallucinated errors." The poster adds: "this was in 2023."
The meeting. In a reply two minutes later the poster writes that "on friday, i had a little meeting with him and the marketing manager" and told them that either they respected the poster as a person with skills and experience or the poster would leave, and that "monday morning i was out".
The dismissal. A further reply says: "i got fired over email" and that the employer's only explanation was "some people know how to work with me and some don't". The poster adds that he paid them for two months of work upfront.
Limits. The posts do not quote what ChatGPT said, what was submitted to it or how the poster learned of its assessments, and they do not describe the errors it reported. The dismissal followed the poster's own ultimatum. The employer's view is not recorded.
Reported harm
The poster says the employer rejected their work day after day because ChatGPT said it was not good and then fired them by email after they objected (first-person account, uncorroborated; the poster says two months of work had been paid upfront).
How Harm Occurred
By the poster's account, ChatGPT told the employer that the poster's documentation and marketing copy was not good, citing errors the poster says were hallucinated, and the employer rejected the work on that basis day after day; after the poster objected, the employer ended the job by email.
Outcome
ResolvedThe poster says they were fired by email on the Monday after the Friday meeting, that the employer's only explanation was that some people know how to work with him and some do not, and that he had paid them for two months of work upfront.
What remains unknown
- What the employer submitted to ChatGPT, what it said about the work and how the poster learned of its assessments.
- What errors ChatGPT reported and whether any were real.
- The employer's account of the rejections and the dismissal.
- Where the poster and the company were, when in 2023 the events happened and how long the job lasted.
- Whether the poster was an employee or a contractor.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The poster says the employer rejected their documentation and marketing copy day after day because ChatGPT had told him it was not good, and attributes ChatGPT's verdicts to hallucinated errors. That describes ChatGPT's output being used in the employer's decisions about the poster's work, which the poster connects to the dispute that ended with the poster's dismissal. The posts do not quote the output, say what was submitted to it or say how the poster learned what it said.
5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported The poster says a man hired them, on the strength of years of experience, to work on his company's documentation and public-facing marketing copy.
Causal attribution. Poster's account.
- bsky.app(opens in new tab) supports · English
a guy hired me to work on his company's documentation and public facing marketing copy based on my years and years of experience
Reported The poster says he then rejected their work day after day because ChatGPT had told him it was not good, which the poster attributes to hallucinated errors.
Causal attribution. Poster's account of the employer's reliance on ChatGPT; the posts do not quote ChatGPT's output.
- bsky.app(opens in new tab) supports · English
he then rejected my work day in and day out because chatgpt had told him it wasn't good because of hallucinated errors
Reported The poster says that after a Friday meeting with him and the marketing manager, at which the poster said they would leave unless their skills and experience were respected, they were out on Monday morning and were fired by email.
Causal attribution. Poster's account; the dismissal followed the poster's ultimatum about the rejections.
- bsky.app(opens in new tab) supports · English
on friday, i had a little meeting with him and the marketing manager and i was like hey, listen, this shit cannot continue, either you respect me as a person with skills and experience or im out. monday morning i was out
- bsky.app(opens in new tab) supports · English
i got fired over email
Reported The poster says the employer's only explanation was that some people know how to work with him and some do not, and that he had paid the poster for two months of work upfront.
Causal attribution. Poster's account; context on the dismissal and payment.
- bsky.app(opens in new tab) supports · English
all the guy had to say was "some people know how to work with me and some don't". at least he paid me for two months of work upfront.
Reported The poster dates these events to 2023.
Causal attribution. Poster's account.
- bsky.app(opens in new tab) supports · English
this was in 2023.
Sources
3 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- Bluesky post by the poster, 18 Oct 2026: employer rejected documentation and copy work because ChatGPT said it was not good(opens in new tab)
s1 · bsky.app · Social media post · English · Inspected · 18 October 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source · Primary
- Bluesky reply by the same poster, 18 Oct 2026: the Friday meeting and being out on Monday morning(opens in new tab)
s2 · bsky.app · Social media post · English · Inspected · 18 October 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source
- Bluesky reply by the same poster, 18 Oct 2026: fired over email after two months paid upfront(opens in new tab)
s3 · bsky.app · Social media post · English · Inspected · 18 October 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 through the public Bluesky API (app.bsky.feed.getPostThread and the author's feed via getAuthorFeed, HTTP 200); no translation and no human reviewer. The poster's handle and display name are not recorded. Root post, 16:34 UTC 18 Oct 2026, quoting another user's prompt about short job tenures. Applies to s1.
Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 through the public Bluesky API (app.bsky.feed.getPostThread and the author's feed via getAuthorFeed, HTTP 200); no translation and no human reviewer. The poster's handle and display name are not recorded. The poster's own reply to s1 (16:36 UTC); same author, same source group. Applies to s2.
Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 through the public Bluesky API (app.bsky.feed.getPostThread and the author's feed via getAuthorFeed, HTTP 200); no translation and no human reviewer. The poster's handle and display name are not recorded. The poster's own reply to s2 (16:37 UTC); same author, same source group. Applies to s3.
Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.
The posts do not say where the poster or the company was located.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-19: Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account, in three posts by one author, of an employer rejecting the author's work on the strength of ChatGPT's assessments and then dismissing the author after the author objected. Described with attribution and without corroboration; the poster's own ultimatum before the dismissal and the upfront payment are recorded.
People described
The poster, hired to work on a company's documentation and marketing copy (age, gender and country not stated)
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed
One person: the poster, who did not use ChatGPT and was affected through the employer's use of it. No other worker is described.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). First-person posts: person hired for documentation and marketing copy says employer rejected their work daily because ChatGPT called it poor, then fired them. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2023-person-hired-for-documentation-and-marketing-copy-says-employer-rejected-work-on-chatgpt-verdicts-then-fired-them-first-person
BibTeX
@misc{2023_person_hired_for_documentation_and_marketing_copy_says_employer_rejected_work_on_chatgpt_verdicts_then_fired_them_first_person,
title = {First-person posts: person hired for documentation and marketing copy says employer rejected their work daily because ChatGPT called it poor, then fired them},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2023-person-hired-for-documentation-and-marketing-copy-says-employer-rejected-work-on-chatgpt-verdicts-then-fired-them-first-person}
} Related cases
Delaware court finds Krafton fired three Unknown Worlds executives without valid cause in a takeover that followed its CEO's ChatGPT strategy
A Delaware Court of Chancery opinion of 16 March 2026 finds that in June 2025 the CEO of Krafton, after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate a contingent earnout obligation, consulted ChatGPT. The chatbot answered that the earnout would be difficult to cancel, suggested an internal task force (Project X) whose mandate was to negotiate a deal or execute a takeover of the studio, and prepared a "Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario" that recommended locking down the studio's Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access. The court found that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month: it locked the studio out of its Steam publishing rights, which severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, posted a message on the studio's websites, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters to the studio's two founders and its CEO. The court held that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three executives without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control, reinstated the studio's CEO and extended the earnout period by 258 days. The opinion records that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options including firing the executives before consulting ChatGPT, and does not find that ChatGPT recommended the terminations. Krafton said it disagreed with the ruling. On 1 July 2026 Krafton announced a mutual settlement with the studio and the three executives dismissing all pending proceedings; IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of it.
US: National Endowment for the Humanities grants terminated after DOGE staff used ChatGPT to flag projects as DEI-related
In March and early April 2025 (the opinion gives no date for the ChatGPT step), a DOGE staff member working with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) submitted short grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a prompt asking whether each project related at all to DEI, and the answers were combined with NEH staff ratings into lists of grants to terminate. More than 1,400 NEH grants (over $100 million) were terminated in notices sent 1 to 3 April 2025. A federal district court found the mass termination unlawful in May 2026 and described the ChatGPT step in its findings. Seven individual grantees who sued report lost or interrupted funding for their research and writing projects. The opinion does not state whether ChatGPT reviewed those seven grants.
France: ex-employees say Alsace firm Plus que pro used AI to screen out job-seekers' CVs by age, sex and African-origin surnames; firm says it never ran
Plus que pro, a company founded in 2014 in Schiltigheim near Strasbourg that recruits franchised sales agents, is accused by three former employees interviewed by AFP of building a recruitment tool that screened candidates on unlawful criteria with the help of AI. According to one of them, in spring 2025 the company collected about 740,000 sales CVs from job platforms such as Hellowork and reduced them to 130,000 in five days with ChatGPT after applying discriminatory filters. AFP says it consulted the prompt, which told the AI to estimate each candidate's age, keep those under 55, infer age from the baccalaureate year and exclude those under 27, and require that the candidate's surname not be of African origin, and a results table listing a rejection reason against each name, such as "too young" or "too old", with women identified by first name marked "Exception". A former employee said that all the sales agents retained had the same profile, white and in their forties; another said the AI only systematised a practice already established when CVs were sorted by hand. One former employee says he has referred the matter to the CNIL and the Défenseur des droits; the CNIL said it could not comment on an individual case. The company denies ever asking anyone to build discriminatory criteria into its tools; it acknowledges that one version of the tool contained developments contrary to its specifications, but says that version was never put into service, evaluated no candidate and was developed by a former employee acting on their own initiative, who has since been dismissed. Rue89 Strasbourg separately reported, from working documents and testimony, that the company sorted thousands of CVs on criteria of gender and supposed origin without the candidates' knowledge between 2023 and 2026; its subscriber-only report could be read only in part.
Saginaw, Michigan: a credit union CEO used ChatGPT to put herself and family members in 'Lake America' sweatshirts in a photo taken before a trip to Halifax; after her sister reposted it publicly without its AI label she says she received death threats and the family came home early, and on 23 September 2026 the credit union said she was no longer employed
The chief executive of Family First Credit Union in Saginaw, Michigan, told WJRT (ABC12) that before boarding a flight to Halifax, Nova Scotia, on 11 September 2026 she and family members took a photo and put it through ChatGPT to show them wearing 'Lake America' sweatshirts, a joke about the US president's order renaming Lake Ontario. She posted it to her private Facebook page with a marker saying it contained AI content; her sister reposted it publicly without the marker while they were in Halifax, and it spread in Canada as if the family had worn the shirts. The backlash concerned the image's political message; she said she would understand the anger of anyone in Halifax who thought the family had walked in wearing those sweatshirts. She said she was getting death threats and the family returned early; by 16 September she was back in the US. She called the post poor judgment, said she would not use AI again and that AI 'can make people think something's real that's not'. On 23 September the credit union said she was no longer an employee, effective immediately; it has not said whether she resigned or was dismissed, or why.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.