Skip to main content

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

In this selection

Published cases
4
Countries with reported events
2
Located 2 of 4 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
4
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases

2 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 2 reviewed as unknown. Show these 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.

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

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 1101 published cases

Event date unknownUnited KingdomAnima Annie

London: AI-generated GP record summary falsely listed diabetes, and a healthy patient was invited to diabetic eye screening, Fortune reports

Fortune reported on 20 July 2025 that a London patient, a healthy man in his mid-20s, had recently received a letter inviting him to diabetic eye screening although he had never been diagnosed with diabetes. He told Fortune he briefly worried he had been diagnosed without knowing, then assumed an admin error. The next day a nurse at a routine blood test questioned the diagnosis and showed him the notes on the system, which were AI-generated summaries. In his full records, which Fortune reviewed, the entry that introduced the diagnosis was listed as a summary 'generated by Annie AI', the tool of Anima Health. It said he had presented with chest pain and shortness of breath from likely angina due to coronary artery disease, that he had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and was on medications with dosages, and it gave the source document's address as a fictitious 'Health Hospital' on '456 Care Road' in 'Health City'. According to the patient and other records Fortune reviewed, none of these details was accurate; the entry appeared around the time he had attended hospital with tonsillitis, which it did not mention. Fortune writes that the invitation was presumably based on the erroneous summary. An NHS representative told Fortune the practice makes limited use of supervised AI, that Anima only suggests codes and a summary to a human reviewer, and that the error was a one-off human error: a summariser had spotted the mistake but, distracted, saved the original version instead of the corrected one. Anima Health did not respond to Fortune.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 26/10/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified chatbot

Panasonic group company says a project member uploaded HR data on about 334,000 employees, former staff and relatives to a banned generative AI service

Panasonic Operational Excellence, a Panasonic Holdings subsidiary, announced on 23 October 2026 that a member of an in-house project introducing a personnel information system had uploaded part of that system's data, as registered in April 2026, to an external generative AI service whose use the company prohibits. According to the announcement as reported by ITmedia and CNET Japan, the data covered about 75,000 current and about 178,000 former employees of Panasonic group companies in Japan (employee numbers, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses, without names) and about 81,000 family members registered as emergency contacts (names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses), about 334,000 people in all. The company says the upload broke internal rules and was not an outside attack, that the employee deleted the chat history and the local data immediately after the problem came to light, and that it reported the matter to Japan's Personal Information Protection Commission on 29 September. The provider told the company that training on the data was switched off at upload but that deleted data is kept for 30 days, until 25 October. No public exposure or misuse had been confirmed. The company has not named the AI service.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026

Event date unknownUnited StatesTimpani

US: HCA nurses tell WIRED its AI scheduling tool overrode their shift requests and scheduled them on requested days off; one delayed a medical appointment

Nurses at HCA Healthcare, the largest US hospital chain, told WIRED, in an article published on 2 October 2026, that Timpani, an AI scheduling tool HCA co-developed with Palantir and has rolled out at about 130 of its 190 locations, assigns shifts that ignore their requests. A Florida critical care nurse said that over four months the tool gave her different shifts for more than half of the 50 she requested, often back-to-back days that left her mentally drained. A Missouri nurse said essentially every nurse at their facility had been assigned to work on a requested day off, and that they delayed a long-planned doctor's appointment for a chronic condition after struggling to trade such a day. HCA says nursing leaders, not Timpani, make final scheduling decisions and that the tool schedules nurses on about 1 percent of requested days off.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 13/10/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownChatGPT

A Norwegian child-safety organisation reports that ChatGPT's behaviour-based age estimation switched an adult staff member's account into teen mode without a request, restricting content and offering an identity check through a third-party verifier as the way out (Barnevakten, 23 September 2026)

Barnevakten, a Norwegian child-safety organisation, reported on 23 September 2026 that one of its staff members was suddenly told by ChatGPT that their account was now in teen mode. ChatGPT's own pages, as described by Barnevakten, say the system turns the filter on when a user's behaviour indicates an age under 18, reducing sensitive or potentially harmful content (graphic violence, viral challenges, sexual or violent role-play, extreme beauty ideals) and offering parental controls and a study mode. Because there is no age check at sign-up, the system estimates age afterwards from conversation topics and times of use, and Barnevakten notes that such guesses can be wrong. An adult who wants out of teen mode can go through an age check run by the company Persona, which depending on the country asks for a real-time selfie and a government ID; Barnevakten questions whether that process is privacy-safe (Persona's terms mention retention of up to three years) and advises using only age checks one trusts. The account's own experience is limited to the unexpected switch and the verification route; no further consequence is described.

Core + contextual relations Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 24/09/2026

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