New hire says employer let them go in their first week for using its own internal AI tool on a compliance training, after telling the manager (first-person)
In a public post to r/jobs created on 24 October 2026, a software engineer with about three years of experience writes that, after three and a half months of assessments and eight interviews, they joined a well-known multinational company that they do not name. In the first week they were given a compliance training whose questions they found ambiguous, and they used the company's own internal AI tool to help, telling their manager, who they say was fine with it. The following Monday, the poster writes, HR joined their one-to-one meeting and told them they were being let go for using AI on the training; the call lasted a couple of minutes and they lost access shortly afterwards. The poster says that a month later about 400 applications and more than 150 cold emails had brought almost nothing back and that they are stressed. The employer, its location and the date of the dismissal are not stated. The account is the poster's alone and uncorroborated; no employer statement was retrieved.
- AI system
- Unidentified AI tool
- Occurred
- Event date unknown
- Reported
- 24 October 2026
- Event location
- Unknown
- What the AI did
- Communicated with the person
- Reported harm
- Professional HarmPsychological Distress
- Whose AI use
- Their own AI use
- Setting
- Work
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
- 3 claims: 3 reported. 4 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: The employer's own internal AI tool, which by the poster's account they used to help with ambiguous compliance-training questions; the tool is not named or described further
What Happened
The new job. The poster, a software engineer with about three years of experience, writes that after a layoff from a small startup they applied widely and the only real response came from a well-known multinational company, which they decline to name. Hiring took "almost a month of written assessments" and then "8 interviews of about an hour each, plus a coding test, spread across three and a half months". They signed a contract they say contradicted what they had been told about benefits.
The training and the AI tool. In the first week the poster was given "a compliance training (don't take bribes, don't bully, that kind of thing)". They write: "The compliance questions were weirdly ambiguous, so I used the company's own internal AI tool to help. I even told my manager I was doing it, and he was fine with it."
The dismissal. "Next Monday, HR joins my 1:1 and tells me I'm being let go for using AI on the training." The poster says the manager "who'd been super friendly all week was ice cold", that the call lasted a couple of minutes and that they lost all access shortly after.
Afterwards. "It's been a month." The poster writes that about 400 applications and more than 150 cold emails brought "almost nothing back", and says they are getting stressed and asks for advice on salary disclosure and job searching. Asked in a reply whether they were let go for using AI while taking training modules, the poster answers "Yes". The earlier startup layoff, which the poster attributes to the company's shrinking runway, is not part of this case.
Reported harm
The poster says they were dismissed in their first week of a new job for using the employer's own internal AI tool on a compliance training, despite having told their manager, and that a month of job searching has brought almost nothing back (first-person account, uncorroborated).
Outcome
OngoingAt the time of the post, about a month after the dismissal, the poster says they had sent about 400 applications and more than 150 cold emails with almost nothing back, that some rejections cited salary expectations, and that they are stressed. In a reply the same day the poster says there is some traction from personal emails to founders, with one or two replies back. No employer statement, appeal or new employment is reported. One commenter replied that using AI on compliance modules justified the dismissal; that is a commenter's opinion, not evidence about the employer.
What remains unknown
- The employer, its location and the date of the dismissal.
- Whether the employer had a written rule against AI use in training, and whether the stated reason was the only one.
- What the internal AI tool is and what it answered.
- Whether the poster challenged the dismissal.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The poster says they used the company's own internal AI tool to help answer ambiguous compliance-training questions and told their manager, and that HR then dismissed them for using AI on the training. The harm is the employer's response to the poster's AI use, a consequential response; the tool's answers are not described and are not said to have been wrong. The poster's account is the only evidence and no employer statement was retrieved.
3 claims: 3 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported The poster says that in their first week at a new employer they were given a compliance training whose questions they found ambiguous, used the company's own internal AI tool to help, and told their manager, who was fine with it.
Causal attribution. Poster's account of their own AI use and the manager's reaction; no employer or manager statement was retrieved.
- reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'a compliance training (don't take bribes, don't bully, that kind of thing)'; 'The compliance questions were weirdly ambiguous, so I used the company's own internal AI tool to help. I even told my manager I was doing it, and he was fine with it.'
Reported The poster says that the following Monday HR joined their one-to-one meeting and told them they were being let go for using AI on the training, and that they lost access shortly afterwards.
Causal attribution. The poster attributes the AI reason to HR; no employer statement or written notice was retrieved.
- reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'Next Monday, HR joins my 1:1 and tells me I'm being let go for using AI on the training'; 'The call lasted a couple of minutes, and I lost all access shortly after.'; asked 'You were let go for using AI while taking training modules?', the poster replies 'Yes'
Reported The poster says that a month after the dismissal about 400 applications and more than 150 cold emails had brought almost nothing back and that they are stressed.
Causal attribution. Poster's account of their own job search; the search outcome is not attributed to the AI use by any source.
- reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'It's been a month.'; '400 applications, 150+ cold emails, almost nothing back.'; 'Im getting stressed and I dont know what to do.'; reply: 'There is some traction in the mail, I do get one or two replies back'
Sources
1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- r/jobs, 24 October 2026: "Got laid off twice with 4 month, and last one within a week of employment for using AI"(opens in new tab)
s1 · reddit.com · Forum post · English · Inspected · 24 October 2026 · Primary
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in English on 2026-10-25: the post through the arctic_shift archive API (subreddit pull and post-ID lookup, 200; created 14:13 UTC on 24 October 2026, not edited), and the live thread (10 entries, 5 by the poster, latest poster reply at 14:47 UTC on 24 October) through Reddit's comment RSS feed at about 03:00 UTC on 25 October. The live post matches the archived copy. The poster's handle is not recorded. Applies to s1.
Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.
The post does not name the country; the poster says only that they are from a developing country and does not say where the employer or the job was. Vocabulary in the post is not evidence of location.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-25: Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a dismissal that the poster says HR gave as a sanction for using the employer's own internal AI tool on a compliance training, reviewed as a consequential response to AI use. Described with attribution and without corroboration; the employer is not identified and the poster's handle is not recorded.
People described
The poster, a software engineer with about three years of experience, dismissed in the first week of a new job by their own account
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed
One person: the poster, who used the internal AI tool and says they were dismissed for it. No other affected person 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). New hire says employer let them go in their first week for using its own internal AI tool on a compliance training, after telling the manager (first-person). AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-new-hire-says-employer-let-them-go-in-first-week-for-using-its-own-internal-ai-tool-on-compliance-training-first-person
BibTeX
@misc{2026_new_hire_says_employer_let_them_go_in_first_week_for_using_its_own_internal_ai_tool_on_compliance_training_first_person,
title = {New hire says employer let them go in their first week for using its own internal AI tool on a compliance training, after telling the manager (first-person)},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-new-hire-says-employer-let-them-go-in-first-week-for-using-its-own-internal-ai-tool-on-compliance-training-first-person}
} Related cases
Toronto: a woman says Meta disabled her Facebook and Instagram accounts and that its AI support chatbots told her a review failed and closed her paid ticket
A Toronto woman told The Canadian Press (29 September 2026) and CBC News (1 October 2026) that Meta permanently disabled her 20-year-old Facebook account and two Instagram accounts on 24 September without giving a reason beyond saying her Facebook account did not follow its rules. She says she could reach only Meta's AI support chatbots. One told her the review she requested was unsuccessful; she told CBC that within minutes of pressing the appeal button she was told her case was closed and she could not appeal again. She then paid for the standard Meta Verified subscription expecting human support, and its support chatbot closed her ticket and told her she had reached her limit of support interactions. She describes losing 20 years of memories and contacts as isolating and says she has lost client opportunities for her side business. She suspects an attempted hack. Meta did not comment on her case to either outlet, and no restoration is reported.
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.
Jeju: police refer a middle-school student over secretly filming teachers and making sexual deepfake composites; teachers dispute victim count and legal aid
Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team. On 6 October 2026 Seogwipo Broadcasting reported, citing people in education and a tipster, that the education authority had finally rejected the victim teachers' application for lawyer fees for an additional criminal complaint, saying in a written opinion that with a police investigation already under way a further complaint could hardly stop or prevent the infringement of their teaching, so the support requirements were not met; critics contrast this with full legal-cost support in earlier sexual-offence cases.
SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence
On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.