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
2
Countries with reported events
1
Located 1 of 2 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 2 of 2 cases
22Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

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

2 cases 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.

No known event years in this selection.

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

2 of 983 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownSwedenUnidentified AI writing tool (suspected)

Lund University student who denies cheating is suspended for six weeks after the disciplinary board judges her fast-written exam answers AI-made, papers report

A student at Lund University wrote close to 1,500 words in six minutes during an exam in May, while other students took around two hours, according to Aftonbladet's relay, dated 28 September 2026, of a Sydsvenskan report. The teacher's report to the university said a writing speed of around 300 words a minute is not realistic for independently produced answers. The student denies cheating: she says she had technical problems, believed the exam would not be graded and wrote only 20 to 50 words per question. The university's disciplinary board sided with the teacher, judged that she had used AI and suspended her from her studies for six weeks. The report does not name an AI tool or describe any detection tool.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 23/10/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified AI writing tool

Student complaints ombudsman finds a zero mark reasonable for a dissertation the student said was written with help from unacknowledged AI

A case summary published in July 2025 by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales, describes a student who was called to a viva over concerns about a dissertation and told the examiners there that AI had been used to help write it. The student agreed the AI material was not referenced and had not declared the AI use on the form the provider required. A panel found academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero; the provider rejected the student's appeal. The student complained to the OIA, saying they received no credit for being honest about using AI or for the time and effort invested. The OIA found the complaint Not Justified, concluding that the provider followed its procedures, gave the student a fair opportunity to respond and applied a proportionate penalty. The summary does not name the provider, give the date of the events or say which AI tool was used.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 23/10/2026

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: 28/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.