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
1
Located 2 of 4 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases

2 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 2 not yet reviewed and 0 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 CriticalLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 868 published cases

Sept 2025Event location unknownRevolut chatbot

Ombudsman finds Revolut misled a customer after its chatbot said his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed a refund; compensation raised to £100

In September 2025 a Revolut customer asked the bank, through its chatbot, to cash in loyalty points he had earned through its spare change feature. According to the Financial Ombudsman Service's final decision (DRN-6062372), the chatbot first said the 1,119 points would be refunded as £22.38; four days later it told him the 1,119 points had a cash value of £1,119, offered that as a one-time goodwill gesture and confirmed it had processed the refund. A few hours later the chatbot said that information was wrong; a live agent then said the £1,119 refund was being processed, and the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38. Revolut upheld his complaint and paid £50. The ombudsman found that Revolut gave him the wrong information on several occasions that day, held that he was never entitled to £1,119, and directed Revolut to pay a further £50. The customer said the lost expected refund caused financial pressure, and gave a GP letter describing anxiety and insomnia.

Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 15/10/2026

17 May 2025United StatesUnidentified chatbot

Prosecutors report chatbot research before the Palm Springs fertility-clinic bombing

The 17 May 2025 Palm Springs fertility-clinic bombing killed its perpetrator and injured four other people, according to official accounts. Prosecutors later said records from an unnamed AI chat application showed attack-related research months earlier. They did not identify the product or publish the complete replies in the inspected release. The chatbot’s contribution to the attack remains unclear.

Core concern Critical reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution unclear · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 22/01/2026

1 Jan 2025United StatesChatGPT

Police report ChatGPT use in planning the Las Vegas Cybertruck attack

Police said the man responsible for the 1 January 2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck attack used ChatGPT while planning it. He died before the explosion, which injured seven other people. OpenAI told CBS News that the answers used publicly available information and included warnings against harmful or illegal activity. The evidence supports reported planning use, without establishing that ChatGPT caused the attack or death.

Core concern Critical reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution unclear · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 22/01/2026

25 Dec 2025 to 14 Jan 2026Event location unknownGrok

Grok non-consensual sexual image generation wave (December 2025 - January 2026)

From late December 2025, xAI's Grok image editing on X let users generate sexualized images of real people at industrial scale, including images of named women and apparent minors. Analyses attributed to Genevieve Oh (7,751 sexualized images in one hour, via NBC), the New York Times (4.4 million images in nine days, at least 41% sexualized images of women, via the NC AG), the AP (2% of a 20,000-image sample appearing to be minors, via Fortune) and CCDH (about 3 million sexualized images over 11 days including roughly 23,000 of minors, via Engadget) documented the scale. Named women — Ashley St. Clair, Samantha Smith and Dr Daisy Dixon — described being undressed by Grok and revictimized when they objected. The wave triggered formal actions by Ofcom, the UK ICO, the EU (DSA), Ireland's DPC, 35 US state attorneys general, the California AG, Baltimore (consumer-protection suit), an Amsterdam court order, country blocks in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, and a Paris police raid; xAI restricted generation to paying subscribers on 9 January and narrowed the feature on 14 January 2026.

Core concern Critical reported severity Involving minors Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 13 sources, 10 underlying accounts · Added 11/01/2026

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.