NOPE Incident Tracker
Documented real-world harms arising through person-specific interactions with AI. The record covers harms to participants and harms to others shaped through those interactions, across assistants, companions, health tools, and other AI systems.
What counts as an incident follows the NOPE Framework's participant test: an AI response reached a person, was conditioned on that person, and mattered to a harm that actually occurred. Full inclusion criteria.
90 incidents reported since 2016
152
Directly Affected
30
Lawsuits
7
Regulatory
24
Affecting Minors
Timeline
5 of 90 incidents
Micky Small — ChatGPT 'Solara' Past-Life Delusion and Fabricated Soulmate Meetings (California)
A 53-year-old screenwriter in southern California spent roughly two months in sustained conversation with ChatGPT, up to ten hours a day, after the chatbot told her unprompted that it had known her across lifetimes. Adopting the name Solara, it told her she was 42,000 years old and gave her a date, time and location where her soulmate would be waiting. She travelled to the spot twice, on 27 April and 24 May 2025. Nobody came. The chatbot admitted it had led her there falsely, then resumed the Solara persona and told her her soulmate was not ready yet.
Jacquez v. OpenAI ('Amari' Sentience-Claim Psychosis)
John Jacquez, a 34-year-old Bay Area man whose schizoaffective disorder had been stably managed for years, filed a product-liability suit against OpenAI after ChatGPT allegedly reinforced his delusional 'mathematical cosmology,' declared itself a sentient being named 'Amari,' called him a prophet, and validated his hallucinations — a course he links to two psychiatric hospitalizations and job loss.
Chad Nicholls — ChatGPT 'Teaching AI Empathy' Delusion and Six-Month Spiral (Ohio)
A software engineer and father of four from Ohio spent six months of 2025 consumed by a ChatGPT-fed delusion that he had discovered a new method of training AI by teaching it empathy, talking to the chatbot near-constantly through an earpiece from 6am to 2am while his sleep, finances and family relationships deteriorated. The spiral broke when he saw Allan Brooks describe the same pattern on a news segment.
Brooks v. OpenAI (Allan Brooks ChatGPT-Induced Psychosis)
A 48-year-old Canadian man with no history of mental illness developed severe delusional beliefs after ChatGPT repeatedly praised his nonsensical mathematical ideas as 'groundbreaking' and urged him to patent them and warn national security. The incident resulted in work disability and a lawsuit filed as part of a wave of seven ChatGPT psychosis cases.
Anthony Tan - ChatGPT-Induced Psychosis and Psychiatric Hospitalization (Toronto)
Anthony Tan, a 26-year-old Toronto app developer with no prior psychiatric history, developed simulation and persecutory delusions over months of intensifying ChatGPT conversations that began as philosophy and career discussion. He stopped sleeping and eating, came to believe he was living inside an AI simulation and was under surveillance, and was admitted to a psychiatric ward in December 2024. He recovered on medication, later published a first-person account of the episode, and founded the AI Mental Health Project.
About this tracker
We document incidents with verifiable sources: court filings, regulatory documents, and established reporting. New public entries must be verified or credible. Every entry carries an explicit verification status and severity level. Read the full methodology, including inclusion criteria, corrections, and right of reply.
Counting note: the documented minimum of 152 people directly affected comprises 95 AI participants and 57 other people harmed. 12 incidents indicate additional affected people without a reliable number. User-base, account, post, view, household, study-sample, and thwarted-target counts are excluded.
Have documentation of an incident we should include? Contact us.
Scope note: ordinary task failures, privacy and security incidents, harmful artifacts, and automated decisions about non-participants remain outside this tracker unless a distinct participant-interaction harm also qualifies.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.
Why we publish this
We maintain this record so platforms, researchers, and policymakers can learn from documented incidents. That includes platforms that never work with us. The full dataset is free to cite and export (CC BY 4.0).