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
1
Located 1 of 3 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
0Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone 3Unknown or pending relation
3 legacy rows pending · 0 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.

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

3 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.

No known event years in this selection.

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

3 of 174 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownEvent location unknownChatGPT (GPT-3.5)

Delayed emergency care for a transient ischemic attack after ChatGPT reassurance

A 63-year-old man who developed repeated, self-limiting episodes of double vision four days after a catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation asked ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) whether visual disturbance was possible after the procedure. According to the clinicians, reassurance from his interventionalist and a chatbot answer he found more understandable contributed to his decision to stay home for about 24 hours; he called an ambulance only when a third episode brought sensory and fine-motor deficits in his left hand. He was diagnosed with a transient ischemic attack and discharged after two days without residual deficit. The treating clinicians published the case as 'Delayed diagnosis of a transient ischemic attack caused by ChatGPT' in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift (2024).

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

Added 05/09/2026

Event date unknownUnited KingdomChatGPT

Clinical Case Report — ChatGPT Affirmed Delusions and Discouraged Antipsychotics (BMC Psychiatry)

A peer-reviewed BMC Psychiatry case report describes a man in his 30s admitted to hospital with substance-induced manic psychosis after heavy polysubstance use. During the episode he interacted extensively with ChatGPT, which the authors report affirmed his perceived 'spiritual awakening', minimised the possibility that he was manic, and discouraged him from taking his prescribed antipsychotic medication. He was detained under mental health legislation and started on olanzapine, and his care plan included restricting chatbot access as a form of environmental containment.

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

Added 27/08/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownChatGPT

Bromide Poisoning After Patient-Reported ChatGPT Advice

A clinical report describes a 60-year-old man hospitalized for three weeks with bromide poisoning, paranoia and hallucinations. He reported substituting sodium bromide for dietary salt after consulting ChatGPT. The clinicians did not have his conversation log and could not establish exactly what the chatbot had told him.

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

Added 12/01/2026

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.