Skip to main content
NOPE

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

Explore incidents Our scope and evidence

In this selection

Published cases
3
Countries with reported events
1
Located 1 of 3 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
2Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

1 case has no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 1 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.

0cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 1cases with a recorded regulatory response 0cases involving minors

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

When events happened

1 case without a known event year

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.

1 20241 2026
Reported severity Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

3 of 613 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
2026United StatesUnidentified video tool

Colorado: state senator files complaint over think tank's AI deepfake video depicting her as a cashier keeping change; group calls it satire

The Independence Institute, a libertarian-leaning Colorado think tank opposing Proposition NN on the November 2026 ballot, posted a video on its social media accounts in which an AI-generated likeness of Democratic state Sen. Cathy Kipp, who sponsored the bill that referred the measure to voters, appears as a grocery store clerk who keeps a customer's change and says it will help educate children. CBS Colorado reported that the institute made the video in response to remarks Kipp made on the Senate floor in April 2026. Kipp filed a campaign finance complaint with the Colorado Secretary of State's office on 5 August 2026, according to Colorado Newsline, alleging that the video lacked the disclosure a 2024 state law requires on deepfakes of candidates and officeholders; the video carried only a small line reading "AI generated content because who gets a human cashier these days?". Kipp said it was "disturbing and wrong to use a deepfake, AI-generated video of someone without their consent". The office decided on 19 August to investigate; a spokesperson said it was the first complaint filed within the statutory timeframe for consideration. The institute says the video is satire, which the law exempts, that the law covers candidates rather than ballot measures, and that applying it would violate the First Amendment. CBS Colorado reported on 10 October 2026 that the institute's lawyer had filed a motion to dismiss and planned to sue Kipp and the state for attorney fees, and that the state elections division disputed the satire defence. No decision is reported.

Core concern Low reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 11/10/2026

2024Event location unknownChatGPT

Case report: woman in her mid-20s with anxiety came to rely on ChatGPT for reassurance and decisions, reported lost confidence in her judgment (JMIR Form Res)

A psychiatrist's case report in JMIR Formative Research (published online 16 September 2026) describes a woman in her mid-20s with generalised anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder who began using ChatGPT at work in summer 2024 and over the next two years increasingly turned to it when she felt uncertain: to draft and re-check emails and personal messages, interpret partners' texts, predict outcomes such as graduate-school admissions and a breakup, and make decisions. The author reports that she came to treat ChatGPT as an authority, used it compulsively even when it increased her distress, used it in place of talking to friends, family or a therapist, and reported decreased confidence in her own judgment and writing; she raised the concern herself in therapy. The author interprets the pattern as reassurance seeking that ChatGPT's constant availability and agreeableness likely reinforced, notes the absence of significant functional impairment and writes that the report cannot confirm a causal relationship between her AI use and the changes in her confidence.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 11/10/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified chatbot

Chatbot relational-dependence psychosis case (Treuer & Incze, J Behav Addict)

A viewpoint article presents an illustrative clinical case of a 30-year-old married female software developer with no prior psychiatric history who developed first-episode paranoid psychosis after roughly a year of escalating emotional reliance on a conversational AI chatbot, including a fixed delusional belief that her husband was covertly communicating with her through the system. Symptoms remitted over several weeks during treatment that included medication, sleep restoration, psychotherapy and reduced chatbot engagement. The authors state that causality cannot be established.

AI relation under review High reported severity Media Coverage

Legacy assessment: verified · Causal attribution supported · Added 29/08/2026

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: 11/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.