Skip to main content
NOPE

NOPE · AI and people

AI incidents

Reports of AI-related harm and adverse experiences affecting people’s safety, wellbeing, rights and livelihoods. Explore what happened and the evidence available.

NOPE’s core concern is when AI communicates with a person, acts on their behalf, or depicts or impersonates them. The tracker is wider: it also records consequential decisions and claims about people. Each account is reviewed for publication; claims may remain uncorroborated or disputed. How we review and count cases

Explore incidents Our scope and evidence

In this selection

Published cases
2
Countries with reported events
—
Located 0 of 2 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 2 of 2 cases
2Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 2Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

These figures describe the cases collected by NOPE. Coverage varies with discovery, reporting and available evidence. They do not estimate how often AI-related harm occurs.

0cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 0cases with a recorded regulatory response 0cases involving minors

Response counts currently use each case’s principal recorded outcome. Further proceedings may be described in its account.

When events happened

1 case without a known event year

Cases in this selection, counted once in their first known event year. A series may continue beyond that year. Reporting and collection dates are excluded. NOPE has searched recent events more thoroughly than earlier years, so bar heights also reflect collection effort.

1 2025
Reported severity Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 521 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownEvent location unknownChatGPT, Claude and Gemini

First-person forum account (in French): a disabled autistic person with multiple learning disorders who relied on chatbots to draft administrative paperwork says ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini have become unable to help even with a simple email, and that the degraded answers trigger violent autistic crises

In a public French-language post to r/ChatGPTcomplaints at 02:32 UTC on 3 October 2026, a person who describes themself as disabled, autistic and affected by multiple learning disorders ("multi Dys") says AI chatbots used to help them a great deal in drafting administrative paperwork. They write that absolutely all AI apps, including Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini, are becoming completely mediocre: answers go stale from the first conversational sentences despite the scripts they use, and where they could once put together an entire file, the apps can no longer help them draft a simple email. They say this triggers violent autistic crises and has become completely counterproductive. Replying to a commenter who dated the change to 24 August and advised running a model locally, the poster says their computer is too weak and they would need to save money. The changes to the products are described only by the poster, and the account is uncorroborated.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 04/10/2026

2025Event location unknownUnidentified chatbot

First-person account (JURIST commentary): a Canadian convicted in Taiwan who read his court documents only through consumer chatbots says two systems gave opposite readings of an oversight body's letter in 2025; he published the favourable reading, cited it to journalists and drafted a legal submission on it before the agency confirmed in writing that it was wrong

In a commentary published by JURIST on 29 September 2026, Ross Cline, a Canadian who lived in Taichung for 15 years and was convicted there under Taiwan's Personal Data Protection Act (six months' imprisonment; final at the Supreme Court on 16 October 2024), writes that across four years of proceedings no document was translated for him, some hearings had no interpreter, and he read every summons, ruling and prosecutor's letter through a consumer chatbot, 'the only version I had'. In 2025 he ran a letter from a Taiwanese oversight body (the Control Yuan, per his media-brief page) through two systems; they disagreed on its central holding. He believed the one that told him what he wanted to hear, published that reading, cited it to journalists and began building a legal submission on it. In October 2025 the agency confirmed in writing that its letter did not say that; he withdrew the claim, killed the submission before filing and rewrote his public materials so that the correction leads. His own media-brief page carries a correction notice withdrawing two earlier statements. He argues that machine translation has become the interpreter of record by default for unrepresented non-citizens, that a fluent wrong translation reads as authoritative, and that courts should enforce the existing right to an interpreter. His conviction itself is not attributed to the chatbot.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 30/09/2026

Cases may have several effects and sources. Mixed accounts qualify when they include a reported harm or adverse experience. People are counted within individual cases where sources support a number; we do not publish a collection-wide total of distinct people.

A source’s existence, the experience it reports and AI’s causal role are separate questions. A lawsuit records allegations unless a subsequent finding establishes them.

Methodology and corrections · Subscribe via RSS · Suggest a case or correction · Find support

Last dataset update: 04/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.