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
5
Countries with reported events
—
Located 0 of 5 cases · 5 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 5 of 5 cases
52Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 5Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

6 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 6 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 0cases 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

5 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

5 of 1099 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
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

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

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.