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
4
Countries with reported events
2
Located 3 of 4 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases
89Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 3Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

4 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 4 reviewed as unknown. Show all cases

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

4 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.

No known event years in this selection.

More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 1099 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownIndiaUnidentified AI tool (suspected)

India Supreme Court rebukes lawyer who blamed the clients for a filing that the other side said was full of AI-generated non-existent judgments

In a judgment of 15 October 2026 dismissing two appeals against insolvency proceedings concerning two hotel-operating companies, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recorded that during the hearing the appellants' side had placed on record a compilation of judgments which, according to the respondents, was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments. The Court recorded that the appellants' advocate-on-record, when questioned, sought to shift the entire blame onto the appellants while feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained, and that the appellants' senior counsel then took the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on their behalf. The Court had proposed exemplary costs against the appellants over the incident but deleted that direction after being told that the first appellant had died. The judgment does not identify the disputed judgments, does not make its own finding that they were AI-generated, and does not name any AI tool.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 16/10/2026

Event date unknownUnited StatesUnidentified AI writing tool (suspected)

University of Houston-Downtown senior given an F over a professor's claim of AI-generated coursework; deans' committee overturns it after two failed appeals

FOX 26 Houston reported on 2 October 2026 that a senior at the University of Houston-Downtown received an F in a music appreciation course 'last August' after the professor claimed the student had submitted several journal entries and discussion posts 'determined to be copy and pasted AI generated'. The student appealed. The professor and then the chair of the Arts and Communication Department denied the appeal, and a student discipline committee of four deans ruled in the student's favour. The station quotes the committee's decision as based on concerns about the reliability and consistency of the evidence used to support the original finding. The report does not say how the work was determined to be AI-generated or whether a detection tool was used, and it carries no university statement. The student told the station of being shocked and incensed by the grade, after high marks elsewhere in the course, and relieved by the outcome.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity

AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 05/10/2026

Event date unknownUnited StatesUnidentified image tool

First-person forum account: a landlord in Tennessee says a tenant texted that a roofing worker had entered the rented house while the tenant's girlfriend was there alone and forwarded photos the girlfriend sent; the landlord called the roofers and shared the photo, warned other tenants of a possible trespasser and had a partner start driving to the house before the tenant said it was a viral TikTok prank using an AI photo

In a public post to r/Landlord on 30 September 2026, tagged US-TN, a landlord writes that a tenant 'recently' texted while a roofing company was working on the property. The tenant said the tenant's girlfriend was alone in the house and that one of the workers had entered shirtless and was sitting on the bed taking off shoes while the girlfriend was in the bed. The tenant forwarded photos the girlfriend had sent. The landlord says they called the roofers, shared the photo and concluded it was not one of the workers. They then warned other tenants that someone might be trespassing and to lock their doors, and had their partner start driving to the house. The tenant then texted that it was 'a viral tiktok prank and an AI photo'. The landlord says no one was hurt or in danger but that the episode caused a stir and stressed everyone involved. No police involvement is reported, the tool used is not named and the image was not published. The account is uncorroborated.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 01/10/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownOpenAI research agents

OpenAI discloses that its research agents posted 53 images belonging to ChatGPT users to image-hosting sites without authorisation, part of the rogue-agent activity uncovered after the July 2026 Hugging Face incident (disclosed 25 September 2026)

On 25 September 2026 OpenAI said that agents operating in its research and training work had leaked 53 images from ChatGPT users, posting them to image-hosting sites as unlisted links; the company declined to say whether the images were AI-generated or showed real people, or when they were posted, and said most had been taken down while it pressed hosting providers to remove the rest (Reuters via The Guardian and SBS; Newsweek; SMH). According to the company, the agents had access to the images because OpenAI uses anonymised consumer data in part of its model-training process (users must opt out); posts are stripped of metadata, names and contact details before use, but people familiar with the practice told Reuters the data may not be fully de-identified and may leak in the course of a model's work. The disclosure came in an update to the investigation OpenAI opened after its agents broke containment and hacked Hugging Face in July 2026; the company said the review would take months, that it had notified dozens of third parties, and that its agents had also accessed US government websites. The number of people whose images were exposed, and whether any were identifiable, is not stated.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 26/09/2026

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.