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 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

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

1 case has no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 1 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 560 published cases

Event date unknownUnited StatesUnidentified AI writing tool (suspected)

A University of Houston-Downtown senior was given an F in a music appreciation course after the professor claimed journal entries and discussion posts were AI-generated; two appeals failed before a student discipline committee overturned the finding

FOX 26 Houston reported on 2 October 2026 that a senior studying business management 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 department chair denied the appeal, and a student discipline committee of four deans ruled in the student's favour. The station quotes the 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. The student described being shocked and incensed by the grade 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 unknownEvent location unknownChatGPT

First-person forum account: a poster who says they build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan writes that OpenAI deactivated their $200-a-month ChatGPT account for "Cyber Abuse" while they were building a remote support tool, and that the appeal, support and dispute routes all closed without a stated reason

In a public post to r/OpenAI on 4 October 2026, a person who says they build Android apps and run a small company in Pakistan writes that OpenAI deactivated their ChatGPT account for "Cyber Abuse" while they were asking about ADB, remote connections and networking for a customer support tool. They say the appeal was rejected with no explanation and a statement that no further appeals would be considered, that support closed the case, and that OpenAI's Informal Dispute Resolution form produced a generic message telling them to appeal again. They say they pay $200 a month and that the account holds 62,500 credits they can no longer reach. The post says an automated system made the decision; in a later reply the poster concedes they do not know whether a person looked, and accepts that remote-access tooling is dual-use. OpenAI's reasons are not known and the account is uncorroborated.

Core concern Low reported severity

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

Event date unknownUnited StatesFlock Safety license plate readers

Savannah, Georgia: a police corporal fired in August 2026 over misuse of the department's Flock license-plate-reader system admitted to six improper license plate searches, two involving the officer's wife and four involving one of her coworkers, according to WTOC's report of the appeal hearing

The Savannah Police Department in Georgia terminated four sworn officers and two civilian employees after an internal investigation, begun on 27 July 2026, found that employees had run searches on personal acquaintances and family members in the department's Flock license-plate-reader system. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrested four of the former employees on 21 August 2026. One of them, a former corporal charged with two counts of misuse of a license plate reader system and one count of violation of oath of office, appealed the firing. WTOC's 21 September 2026 report of the appeal hearing said the former corporal admitted to six improper license plate searches, two involving the officer's wife and four involving one of her coworkers. Neither person is identified, and no source says whether they knew of the searches. A decision on the appeal was pending.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 05/10/2026

Event date unknownUnited KingdomUnidentified chatbot

Lewes Crown Court, England: a rape trial was stayed part-way through and the jury discharged after documents on the complainant's phone, which the complainant said came from putting material into AI to prepare for court, were treated as witness coaching; the Court of Appeal reversed the stay on 4 June 2026 and ordered a retrial

During a rape trial at Lewes Crown Court, a download of the complainant's phone revealed two documents containing a summary of the complainant's recollection of the night in question and 24 questions in the form of a cross-examination, with suggested answers. Asked about them, the complainant said: 'I had put stuff into AI to help me prepare myself for the court'. The trial judge (a Recorder) held that this was witness coaching, found that the defendant could not have a fair trial and stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process; the jury was discharged when the prosecution gave notice of appeal. On 4 June 2026 the Court of Appeal (R v FGD [2026] EWCA Crim 918) reversed the stay, holding that the trial process could deal with any prejudice, and directed a retrial at the earliest opportunity because the allegations were 'now of some age'. The defence did not accept that the documents were AI-generated; the appeal proceeded on that basis. The court warned that witnesses should be firmly discouraged from using AI to prepare their evidence and that, for complainants in sexual-offence cases, doing so may expose their online activity to wider and more intrusive investigation.

Core concern Medium reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026

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: 05/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.