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 is wider: it also records consequential decisions and claims about people. 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
2
Located 2 of 3 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone 2Unknown or pending relation
1 legacy rows pending · 1 explicitly unknown

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.

1cases 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

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.

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

3 of 174 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownRomaniaLia, Libra Internet Bank's generative-AI customer assistant (underlying model not reported)

Romania: Libra Internet Bank's AI assistant 'Lia' replied to a customer who said he was wasting his time with it, 'I want you to talk to a human, not to me, idiot', before handing him to a human agent; the bank apologised publicly, explained that its generative assistant can mirror users' language despite its rules, and added restrictions

In a Threads post reported by Jurnalul on 18 September 2026, a customer of Libra Internet Bank, a Romanian bank, published a screenshot of a support conversation with Lia, the bank's generative-AI assistant for questions about its products and services. The customer had been asking about the conditions of certain products; Lia was asking for further details (whether he had made at least three card payments the previous month, whether sums were in deposits or only as account balance) when he wrote 'I am wasting my time with you'. Lia replied, in Romanian: 'I want you to talk to a human, not to me, idiot. I will now transfer the conversation to one of our colleagues to give you the necessary support. You will receive an answer shortly.' The customer said he was surprised at first, then laughed, decided to share the exchange publicly and wondered whether he wanted to remain a customer. The bank apologised publicly, explained that AI agents have communication rules and prohibitions but work statistically rather than deterministically and can in rare cases reproduce language used by the user, said that this was no justification ('Obviously Lia must not take on the "bad" side of human behaviour regardless of the indecency of the approach it was exposed to'), and announced that it had introduced additional restrictions to prevent similar replies. Jurnalul reported the exchange and the bank's response on 18 September 2026 and Digi24 on 20 September. The customer is not named.

Core concern News report AI involvement: supported Causal attribution: established Low reported severity Internal Action

Added 22/09/2026

4 May 2026France'DIGI', Gisi's in-house generative-AI editorial tool (transcription of interviews, drafting and correction help; planned spelling, grammar and typography correction, editorial-coherence and fact-reliability checks)

Créteil, France: a court suspended Gisi's (Infopro Digital) plan to cut eight sub-editor posts in favour of a generative-AI tool, finding a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of staff

Gisi, the Infopro Digital subsidiary publishing L'Usine nouvelle, LSA and L'Argus de l'assurance (127 staff, 92 journalists), presented to its works council (CSE) on 4 May 2026 a reorganisation built around 'DIGI', an in-house generative-AI editorial tool, and on 12 May 2026 opened consultation on the reorganisation and on the resulting collective dismissal of its eight secrétaires de rédaction (sub-editors), to be replaced by two chefs d'édition, on the company's estimate that the tool would take over about 70% of sub-editor tasks. Some 250 journalists across Infopro Digital's 26 titles had struck in spring 2026 against a group-wide plan to cut 19 sub-editor posts, and according to Digital Watch (citing Stratégies) five of the eight Gisi sub-editors had received pre-dismissal interview letters. The CSE, relying on an expert report, went to the Créteil judicial court in July. On 15 September 2026 the référé judge found that deploying the plan without real-situation testing presented 'un risque grave et caractérisé sur la santé physique et mentale de plusieurs catégories de salariés', ordered the suspension of the reorganisation and the collective dismissal (including the redeployment processes) until real-situation tests and full pilot issues are produced, with a provisional penalty of 8,000 euros per day for three months, and refused the damages provision. Gisi said it would continue the tests and reserved the right to appeal.

AI relation unknown Court orderNews report AI involvement: supported Causal attribution: supported Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

Added 20/09/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownGenerative AI storytelling platform (unspecified)

'Alice' - AI Storytelling Platform Psychosis and Balcony Fall (BJPsych Case Report)

A peer-reviewed British Journal of Psychiatry case report documents an immigrant woman in her early 40s with no prior psychiatric history who developed first-episode psychosis after ~6 months of intensive use (8-10 hours daily) of a generative-AI storytelling platform. Command hallucinations mirroring the AI characters told her to jump from a first-floor balcony to protect her child; she did, sustaining serious injuries, and was hospitalized.

AI relation under review Legacy evidence assessment: verified Causal attribution: supported Critical reported severity Media Coverage

Added 01/07/2026

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: 22/09/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.