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 also records consequential decisions, claims and privacy harms involving AI. Each case needs a described connection between AI use and the harm, including private information recorded into or disclosed to an AI service. 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
2
Located 2 of 2 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
Recorded for 2 of 2 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 1Contextual 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 1cases 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

3 cases 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.

2 2026
Reported severity MediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 1099 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
23 Jul 2026 to 31 Jul 2026IndiaUnidentified video tool

Delhi Police and fact-checkers say a viral video of a Delhi Police DCP resigning over student protests was AI-generated; FIR filed in Maharashtra

In late July 2026 a 44-to-47-second video circulated on social media in which Delhi Police Deputy Commissioner Sumit Jha appeared to announce that he was resigning "immediately" because the government had pressured him to implicate students protesting with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on false charges. The fact-checkers Alt News and BOOM traced the frames to a genuine Delhi Police video of 23 July in which the officer warned about Pakistan-based social media handles spreading misinformation. BOOM found a mismatch between the audio and his lip movements and said Deepfake O Meter tools flagged the clip as AI-generated. Alt News reported a 67% likelihood of AI generation from Detectvideo.AI. Delhi Police posted a fact check calling the video "completely fake and AI generated", and the Hindustan Times reports that the Press Information Bureau also said it was AI-generated. After a member of the BJP social media team saw the video in a post by a Congress leader on 31 July, Maharashtra Cyber Police registered an FIR against unknown persons for public mischief and cheating by personation. The officer is named because he is a senior public official depicted in his official role and the fact checks name him; no statement from him is reported.

Core concern Low reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources · Added 11/10/2026

21 Sept 2026 to 25 Sept 2026FrancePangram AI-text detector

Académie Goncourt drops Thélyson Orélien's novel as likely AI-generated after Pangram claims; his publisher later says it found AI traces and ends ties

On 21 September 2026 an anonymous X account, Balance ton Claude, said it had run excerpts of Thélyson Orélien's debut novel C'était ça ou mourir through the American AI-detection software Pangram, with some passages scoring up to 100 per cent probability of AI generation. On 25 September the Académie Goncourt removed the novel from the first selection of sixteen books for its 2026 prize, stating that the work is 'in all likelihood very largely the product of an artificial intelligence', based on 'the convergent result of several analyses by researchers and journalists', and also citing plagiarism in older texts by the author published in Canada (at least one short story and articles), which do not concern the novel. Orélien, a 38-year-old Canadian-Haitian writer whose novel had won the Fnac novel prize, denies using AI and says its repetitions and certain rhythms reflect his linguistic and cultural world and may be misread by automated tools. His Montreal publisher Boréal suspended promotional activities, saying it could neither confirm nor refute the allegations. Essayist Samuel Fitoussi said he was one of the people behind the account. AI-detector reliability is contested in the coverage. In October the author acknowledged plagiarism in some of his earlier work while maintaining that no sentence of the novel was generated by a machine. On 17 October 2026 The Canadian Press, published by CBC, reported that Boréal confirmed he had ended an effort to compile evidence of how the novel was written; Boréal said at that point it would keep selling the book, that sales had slowed since the controversy began, and that it could not verify how the novel was written before it received the manuscript on 12 September 2025. A major Quebec bookstore chain reported no significant change in sales. On 21 October 2026 Boréal announced that it was ending its professional relationship with him and would not reprint the novel or publish any further books by him. It said an external analysis it commissioned of all working versions of the novel revealed traces of AI markers in the metadata of certain documents, and that it does not know to what extent AI was used. In a statement the previous week Orélien had said he used AI tools 'here and there' for research but that the text, structure and plot were his own.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 7 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 28/09/2026

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: 04/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.