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
5
Countries with reported events
3
Located 3 of 5 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
7
Recorded for 5 of 5 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.

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

5 of 868 published cases

23 Jun 2026United KingdomUnidentified AI system

Derbyshire Police refer a senior detective to the police watchdog, which opens a gross misconduct investigation into the officer's use of AI

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said, as reported by the BBC on 10 August 2026, that Derbyshire Constabulary had made a voluntary conduct referral on 23 June 2026, following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns that it was not in line with guidance and conditions issued by the force. The IOPC decided the matter warranted an investigation, and the officer was served notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct. The BBC, citing the Financial Times, reported that a person familiar with events said the officer is a detective chief inspector alleged to have used AI to maintain decision logs, which investigators keep to record their reasoning and which can be disclosed to defence lawyers. The BBC describes the case as unrelated to the criminal investigation opened in June into another Derbyshire officer. The AI system and the outcome are not reported.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 14/10/2026

11 Oct 2026Event location unknownPangram AI-text detector

Caine Prize reviews its 2026 winning story after a Pangram AI-detector scan cited by The Atlantic flagged it as AI-generated; the author denies using AI

A week after a Zimbabwean writer won the £10,000 2026 Caine Prize for African Writing, The Atlantic published an article on Sunday 11 October 2026 whose central evidence was a scan by Pangram, an AI-text detection tool, flagging almost the entire winning story as AI-generated. The Caine Prize said it had begun a review: according to its chair, the author would send documentation of his drafts and the prize was talking to the judges and to the magazine that first published the story. The chair told the BBC that The Atlantic had published before a full investigation, tainting the prize and the winner, and said a detector should not be the final arbiter. The author denied using AI and said he had a documented history of the story's development; his literary agency said it was confident the story was his own work. No finding has been announced.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 14/10/2026

2 Jan 2026Event location unknownGrok

UK: Grok made sexualised images of a Welsh presenter and a broadcaster at users' requests; police closed both cases, then reopened the presenter's, TBIJ reports

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and The Observer reported on 29 September 2026 that police investigations into sexualised images generated by X's chatbot Grok had failed to identify anyone. A Welsh presenter and campaigner against deepfake abuse, who had criticised Grok publicly on New Year's Eve 2025, saw an anonymous X user ask '@grok' to put her in a bikini made of cling film; Grok generated the image from her profile photo and posted it. She reported it to South Wales Police on 2 January 2026, was not asked for a statement until March, and was told officers had not heard back from X; the case was closed in May with the force saying no suspect could be identified. The same account also targeted a commentator and broadcaster, who estimates about 300 Grok images and videos of her were posted during the wave, including one alongside Jeffrey Epstein reported to the Metropolitan Police, which likewise said no suspect could be identified. The presenter entered pre-action legal correspondence with xAI (part of SpaceXAI) alleging misuse of private information and breaches of data-protection law and the Equality Act. On 22 October 2026 TBIJ reported that South Wales Police had reopened her case after she filed a formal complaint in September and TBIJ gave officers new information about the requesting user, including a crypto wallet and dozens of deleted posts; the force said it was now investigating the offence under the sexual-offences legislation aimed at deepfakes, rather than malicious-communications law, including enquiries with X. TBIJ added that other users had edited images of her with the standalone Grok app and that she is starting civil legal action against the company. BBC Wales had reported in January 2026 that explicit images of the presenter were created with the chatbot and shared without her consent.

Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 30/09/2026

19 Jun 2026 to 13 Aug 2026BrazilChatGPT and OpenAI moderation

Brazilian man detained without charge after OpenAI reported messages; he denies intending harm

BBC reporting describes a Brazilian man detained for 54 days after OpenAI reported messages to the FBI and Brazilian authorities. Police described a credible threat; he denied intending harm. A court released him without charges under protective conditions. The report did not include ChatGPT’s replies.

Core + contextual relations High reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 23/09/2026

6 Mar 2026IndiaChatGPT (reported)

Police say two Surat students found dead had searched ChatGPT about suicide

Two college students were found dead in a washroom on a temple campus in Surat, Gujarat, on 6 March 2026, and police said their preliminary investigation pointed to suicide. Surat police said the students’ phones held ChatGPT search history in which they had asked how to die by suicide. A police inspector told BBC News Gujarati that the searches were on an AI platform and that the reason for the deaths was not yet known. No inspected source describes what ChatGPT replied. Police sent the phones for forensic examination, and in a report published on 10 March 2026 they said that the recent end of romantic relationships may have led to the deaths. No forensic result had been reported in the sources found.

Core concern Critical reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution unclear · 8 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 23/03/2026

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: 23/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.