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
20
Countries with reported events
1
Located 1 of 20 cases · 19 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
Recorded for 20 of 20 cases

12 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 12 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 Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

20 of 1099 published cases

10 Jul 2024Event location unknownGemini (reported)

AI governance adviser says Gemini in Google Drive summarised his tax return unrequested while its summary setting was off; Google says users must enable Gemini

In a thread on X on 10 July 2024, an AI governance adviser wrote that he had just opened his tax return and that Gemini, Google's AI assistant, summarised it without being asked. He wrote that he could not find a setting to stop it, that the two locations Gemini itself suggested did not work, and that when another user showed him the setting meant to keep Gemini out of his documents it was already turned off while Gemini kept giving document summaries. His later testing, in the same thread, suggested that once Gemini had been opened for one PDF in Google Drive it was invoked again for every PDF he opened until he closed it, and he put forward a working theory that his 2023 sign-up for Workspace Labs had overridden the opt-out. A Google spokesperson told technology outlets that using Gemini in Google Workspace requires a user to enable it proactively and that content is not stored without permission; Tom's Hardware reports that Google suggested he may have used Gemini through the Drive side panel and that closing the panel might solve the issue.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 01/11/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownGoogle Search AI summary (reported)

First-person account: patient says a doctor read Google's AI search summary for a diagnosis and later called to say the patient was right

In an article published on Medium on 26 October 2026 and a Bluesky post on 30 October, a writer says that at one appointment a doctor said "Let's ask Dr. Google", searched for a diagnosis and read the AI summary at the top of the results without opening any sources. The writer says the doctor was wrong; after they emailed him their sources and asked what they were missing, he called to say they were right. They say they were nervous to send the emails, and that their own research used Claude and Gemini, cross-checked against the cited sources. The article does not say what the summary said, what the diagnosis was, or when the appointment took place.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 31/10/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownChatGPT (reported)

California patient says urgent-care discharge papers were printed ChatGPT answers that other doctors told her were unsafe for her condition (first-person)

In a TikTok video posted on 28 October 2026, a woman described as living in California says the discharge paperwork and at-home treatment plan she received after a visit for care consisted of printed ChatGPT responses, which, according to a 30 October report by The Nerd Stash, included what appeared to be earlier chat prompts with labels such as "Aftercare Instruction Request". In a comment she identified the facility, which the report names only as allegedly an urgent-care clinic. She describes herself as medically complex, with a rare genetic disorder. In her caption she writes that, had she followed the instructions blindly, they would likely have led to bowel perforation given her history, citing other doctors she asked. She did not follow them. The clinic's account, the clinician involved and the date of the visit are not known.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 31/10/2026

2026Event location unknownClaude (reported)

First-person post: product team worker says manager ordered repeated rework and wrong product documentation on Claude reviews the worker calls hallucinated

In a Reddit post on 20 October 2026, an associate product manager at a privately owned e-commerce business writes that a new manager, who joined about three months earlier, connected Claude to the company's content management system and Asana and now has every piece of the poster's work reviewed by it. The poster says Claude keeps hallucinating problems that are not there, that the manager does not check the work or read the team's comments, and that the poster has had to redo 500 SKUs and has redone an SKU task five times, so that a task that used to take three days has taken two weeks. The poster also says the manager wants the knowledge base and product pages changed to match Claude's account of the company's own products, which the poster says is wrong because the information comes from the manufacturers. The post does not quote Claude's output, and the manager's account is not recorded. The account is uncorroborated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 21/10/2026

18 Oct 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI transcription tool

Writing-group member says online session host began recording members with AI transcription software without asking; two members objected (first-person)

In a Reddit post on 19 October 2026, a member of an online creative writing group writes that the day before, the group's host started recording the session using AI transcription software without asking. According to the post, a participant noticed the notification and asked him about it, and the poster and that participant told him they were not comfortable with it. The poster says the host seemed embarrassed and said he should have asked first, but also said members had requested it. The poster had earlier told the host and regulars that they had left another group because it used AI transcription software, and describes the group as one where people read out their original work. The post does not name the software or say whether the recording stopped or what happened to it. The account is uncorroborated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 20/10/2026

2023Event location unknownChatGPT (reported)

First-person posts: person hired for documentation and marketing copy says employer rejected their work daily because ChatGPT called it poor, then fired them

In three linked Bluesky posts on 18 October 2026, written in answer to another user's call for stories of short job tenures, a person writes that a man hired them on the strength of years of experience to work on his company's documentation and public-facing marketing copy, and that he then rejected their work day after day because ChatGPT had told him it was not good. The poster attributes ChatGPT's verdicts to hallucinated errors. The poster says that after they told him and the marketing manager at a Friday meeting that this could not continue and that they would leave unless their skills and experience were respected, they were out by Monday morning, fired by email, and that he had paid them for two months of work upfront. The poster dates the events to 2023. The posts do not quote ChatGPT's output or say how the poster knew what it said, and the employer's account is not recorded. The account is uncorroborated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 19/10/2026

17 Oct 2026Event location unknownOpenAI support assistant (reported)

ChatGPT Pro subscriber says OpenAI's AI support assistant, asked for compensation, processed a refund that ended a restored subscription (first-person account)

In a public post to r/ChatGPTcomplaints created on 17 October 2026, a ChatGPT Pro subscriber writes that OpenAI disabled their account two days after they paid $200 on 30 September, rejected their appeals for about two weeks, and on 17 October restored the account, acknowledging in an email that it had been disabled in error. The poster says they then asked OpenAI's AI-powered support assistant for compensation for the lost days while keeping the subscription. According to the poster, the assistant said it could not give credits, usage resets or discounts, offered a proportional refund of $86.67 and warned that accepting it would immediately cancel the subscription; the poster replied 'Yes, I approve', and the assistant then said the paid access had ended, that it could not reverse the refund, and suggested buying another subscription. The poster acknowledges the warning and their confirmation but says they misunderstood the consequence and had asked about the lost period, not the remaining one. The request was forwarded to a human specialist and was unresolved at the time of posting. The account is uncorroborated; the post was later removed by Reddit for an unstated reason.

Core + contextual relations Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 18/10/2026

Jun 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI jury tool

First-person posts: person says their fiancé cited an online AI jury's verdict to refuse to discuss a recurring dispute, and they ended the engagement

In two public posts to r/offmychest, on 6 June and 9 October 2026, a person writes that after a recurring argument about chores their fiancé told them he had used an online AI jury to decide which of them was right, that the 'jury' said he was right, and that he then refused to discuss the argument, saying the AI had told him he was right and the poster was being unreasonable. The poster says they left to stay with a relative on the morning of the first post. In the October update they write that the relationship is over, that they cancelled a wedding planned for late November and tried to recover what money they could, and that they ended things because their ex-fiancé would not discuss the dispute and 'kept on harping about the AI saying he was right'. The posts do not say that the poster saw the AI output; what it said is known only through the fiancé's account as relayed by the poster. The tool is not named. The poster also describes a longer-running disagreement over housework that predates the AI use. The account is uncorroborated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 17/10/2026

Oct 2026Event location unknownMeta AI (reported)

Ray-Ban Meta glasses owner says Meta AI stored recordings and transcripts of conversations captured without the wake word; Meta says the issue is resolved

In a Reddit post on 13 October 2026, an owner of Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses says the glasses captured conversations they were having with another person although they had not said the wake word "Hey Meta" and the setting for responding without it was turned off. The owner says the Meta AI app saved audio recordings and text transcripts of these conversations in their history, that Meta AI never answered, and that they saw the same behaviour on three pairs (second and third generation) after a recent firmware update. A screenshot attached to the post shows the app's voice activity log with stored entries dated 12 October. The owner says Meta Support advised turning off microphone and camera permissions, Wear Detection and automatic updates and deleting voice history, and later replied that recording continued with everything turned off. On 16 October 2026, after Meta's statement, the owner replied that a new update had been pushed to their glasses and the issue was unchanged. A Meta spokesperson told Android Authority, as relayed by Futurism, Ars Technica and Mashable, that the issue had been resolved. Ars Technica reports that Meta has not said what caused the recordings or how many glasses were affected, and that Android Authority could not reproduce the problem before Meta's statement. The owner says they cannot establish whether the recordings were sent to Meta's servers. On 19 October 2026 a California buyer filed a proposed class action against Meta in federal court (Subia v. Meta Platforms) alleging that Meta AI glasses recorded his conversations without the wake phrase, in violation of California's wiretapping law; the complaint quotes reporting of this owner's three-pairs account. Its allegations are unproven.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 6 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 16/10/2026

Oct 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI medical scribe

First-person post: patient says the AI summary of a doctor's appointment listed, among current medications, a drug the patient has never taken

In a Bluesky post on 14 October 2026, a patient says their doctor asked whether they minded his use of AI to summarise the appointment the day before. The patient says they explained their objections and then consented because they wanted to see the summary it generated. When the summary was posted in the patient portal, it listed among the patient's current medications a drug the patient says they do not take and have never taken. In a reply shortly afterwards the patient said the drug had not made its way to the official medication list but was listed in the clinical notes, and that they had messaged the doctor. In an update the next day the patient wrote that they and the doctor agree the medication was likely inserted because the AI took something else the doctor said for the drug's name, and that the doctor tells them the record has been corrected. The AI product, the medication and the summary are not public, and the doctor's own account is known only through the patient.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 15/10/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownPangram AI-text detector (reported)

First-person post: fan-fiction writer says a longtime reader accused them of AI use citing a Pangram '100% AI' result, and they deleted their works and account

In a post to r/TrueOffMyChest on 11 October 2026, a writer who had posted fan fiction on Archive of Our Own (AO3) since 2023 says a reader accused them of using AI and said that Pangram, an AI-text detector, had rated their work 100% AI. The writer says they have never used AI. They say they then ran Pangram themselves on something written on the spot and on texts from their high-school years in the 2010s, and each came back 100% AI. They say they deleted all their works and their AO3 account rather than face further accusations, and that they feel sad and can never repost the works. In a reply the writer says the accuser was a regular reader who had commented for years. The account is uncorroborated: the accusation, the Pangram results and the deleted works were not published.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 12/10/2026

11 Apr 2026 to 11 Oct 2026Event location unknownChatGPT

Adult ChatGPT Plus subscriber says the account was classified as a teen and restricted, and that OpenAI said profiling had to come first; first-person post

In a Reddit post of 11 October 2026, a ChatGPT Plus subscriber who says they are an adult (36, by the post's own account) writes that when OpenAI's age checks rolled out their account was classified as a teen account and put on a restricted account. The poster says they had earlier emailed OpenAI asking for verification options without ID or a photo, received a canned reply about the verification provider Persona, and on escalating to data protection was told they had to be profiled first. The poster says they then cancelled the subscription. OpenAI's Help Center says ChatGPT uses an age prediction system that reads account signals, automatically enables the teen experience when it predicts an account may belong to someone under 18, can get this wrong, and lets adults verify their age to remove it. The account is the poster's own and is not corroborated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 11/10/2026

Oct 2026Event location unknownChatGPT (reported)

Patient reports a nurse was already recording with ChatGPT when they declined AI notes

In a public Reddit account, a patient says a nurse asked whether AI could take notes at a medical appointment. After the patient objected, the nurse picked up a phone that the patient described as showing ChatGPT already recording. The patient describes the recording as occurring without prior notice and says their objection was dismissed. In replies, the author says the phone had Chrome open to ChatGPT, that recording had started when the nurse entered the room, before she asked consent, and that the recording was disabled only after the author insisted. This is an uncorroborated first-person account. It does not establish what was captured, whether anything was sent to a server, retained or used for training, or whether a law was broken. The clinic’s location, account type and response are unknown.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 06/10/2026

Jun 2026United StatesFlock Safety license plate readers

Plymouth, Minnesota: police boxed in and detained an automotive journalist and the journalist's wife for about an hour in June 2026 after Flock cameras matched a loaned Range Rover's plate to an incomplete stolen-plate entry

An automotive journalist for The Drive wrote that on a Sunday afternoon in late June four Plymouth police cars boxed in the Range Rover press vehicle the journalist was testing, in a Kohl's parking lot. Officers ordered the journalist and the journalist's wife out, patted the journalist down, questioned both and said the plates were stolen. According to the account, officers said they had tracked the vehicle for days through Flock license-plate cameras and acted on a camera alert that morning. The couple were released after about an hour, once the manufacturer explained that a similar plate had been reported stolen in California. In a follow-up, Flock's chief communications officer said the stolen plate had been entered without its two middle digits and that the system matched what it was asked to find. The spokesperson said an alert does not equal probable cause. The police chief acknowledged that officers did not get it right. A second journalist with a similar plate was later stopped in Nebraska.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 05/10/2026

3 Oct 2026Event location unknownOpenAI Help Center assistant

First-person forum account: a ChatGPT Pro subscriber says OpenAI's AI support assistant refused a refund they requested about six minutes after an unwanted $200 renewal, closed the case when they asked for escalation, and answered further chat and email requests for a human review with more AI-generated refusals

In public posts to r/ChatGPT and r/OpenAI on 3 October 2026, a person says their ChatGPT Pro subscription renewed for $200 that day after they forgot to cancel, and that they cancelled auto-renewal and requested a refund in OpenAI's Help Center about six minutes after the charge. They say the Help Center's AI assistant declined without giving a reason specific to their account, and that when they asked for escalation the chat showed that the case was closed. A second chat asking specifically for a human billing specialist produced the same refusal, they write, and two email requests, one with five redacted screenshots, received replies marked as generated with AI support. The poster acknowledges that OpenAI's seven-day refund policy is discretionary and conditional, and says the unresolved problem is that they received no case-specific explanation and no confirmed human review. OpenAI's handling is described only by the poster, and the account is uncorroborated.

Core + contextual relations Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 04/10/2026

2 Sept 2026 to 2 Oct 2026Event location unknownCharacter.AI age verification

First-person forum account: a long-time Character.AI user who says they are an adult says the app's AI age verification, run through Persona, kept judging them a minor despite ID photos, answered more than five support tickets only with automated replies, and locked them out of their account

In a public post to r/CharacterAI at 21:47 UTC on 2 October 2026, a person who describes themselves as a veteran user of the Character.AI app says they returned about a month earlier to verify their age, and that the AI verification by Persona assumed they were a minor although they are not. They say they sent photos of their ID, tried desktop and different lighting, and kept getting an error message; that more than five support tickets asking for manual verification drew only replies from automated bots; and that the age verification system has now locked them out of their account. In a reply they say the system should identify people properly instead of "locking it out on permenent basis". A commenter says the same check called them underage. The account is uncorroborated, and Character.AI's and Persona's handling is described only by the poster.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 03/10/2026

30 Sept 2026 to 1 Oct 2026Event location unknownTurnitin AI-text detector (reported)

First-person forum account: a student in an AP Research course says their teacher reported that Turnitin's AI checker found their source annotations '100% AI' and said the checker never gives false accusations; the student says they wrote the work themselves and can show document history

In a public post to r/ApplyingToCollege early on 1 October 2026 (UTC), a student taking the Advanced Placement (AP) Research course writes that their teacher told them that day that their source annotations had been found to be '100% ai' by Turnitin. The student says they did not use AI. They say their document history shows them typing over the course of an hour and that some sentences closely follow notes they wrote for an earlier assignment. They also say they had faced no AI accusation in a research course with the same teacher the year before. By the student's account, the teacher said the matter would be discussed later and that Turnitin's AI checker feedback never ends up being a false accusation. The student says the accusation leaves them upset and unsure how to defend themselves. No grade or disciplinary outcome is reported. The account is uncorroborated, and one commenter doubted it.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 01/10/2026

Aug 2025Event location unknownUnidentified AI-text detector

Student reports receiving a zero after a disputed AI-detector result

In an August 2025 first-person post, a student said they discovered a zero for a summer-course discussion assignment after a checker labelled 85% of the text AI-generated. They denied using AI to write it, reported contacting the professor, and described anger and fear of future accusations. Neither the detector output nor the school’s account was available for verification.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 29/09/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownFacebook video face-scan check

First-person forum account: a Facebook user says a video face-scan security check failed to recognise them after their appearance changed, an automated ID check then rejected their government ID over a nickname, and they were locked out of a five-year-old account

In a public post to r/facebook on 28 September 2026, a user writes that their five-year-old Facebook account was hit with a security check that asked for a video face scan, which 'failed completely'. They say their face had changed a lot through recent life circumstances and 'The AI simply didn't recognize me.' Facebook then asked for ID, and 'the automated system instantly rejected' their government ID because their profile uses a shortened nickname. The poster says they are locked out of years of memories, friends and active Marketplace listings and are looking for a way to reach a human or download their data. Meta has said that video selfies used to regain access to compromised accounts are compared with the account's profile pictures using facial recognition; whether this check worked that way is not known. The account is uncorroborated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 29/09/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownGemini note-taking in Google Meet

First-person forum account: an agency employee in England says Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients after the agency's boss left the call, and that the boss passed their private post-meeting discussion to staff to shape a follow-up pitch

In a public post to r/LegalAdviceUK on 28 September 2026, an employee of a marketing agency in England writes that their boss pitched a prospective client and the client's business partner on a Google Meet call with Gemini note-taking switched on. After the boss said goodbye and left, the two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and the other agencies they were considering, and Gemini kept taking notes. The boss then sent the employee the notes and transcript, which named a competing agency and included 'personal details of who they spoke to specifically on the call', and asked for a follow-up deck built on what the partners liked and disliked. The poster believes the partners did not know they were still being transcribed. Google's help page says Meet tells all participants when notes are being taken; whether the partners noticed is not known. The account is uncorroborated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · 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: 04/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.