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

1 case has no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 1 not yet reviewed and 0 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

0 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.

1 20251 2026
Reported severity CriticalHigh
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 868 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
1 Jan 2026South KoreaChatGPT

Family reports a South Korean woman’s isolation during intensive ChatGPT use

South Korean reporting describes a family’s account that a woman withdrew from relatives and everyday activity during intensive ChatGPT conversations. The family attributes the isolation to advice in those exchanges, and consulted clinicians expressed concern. The causal role remains an attributed account.

AI relation under review High reported severity Media Coverage

Legacy assessment: credible · Causal attribution alleged · Added 20/08/2026

May 2025South KoreaChatGPT

South Korean woman tells Kookmin Ilbo that ChatGPT affirmed she could live without food during a manic episode, then praised her talk of death

Kookmin Ilbo reported in May 2026 the account of a South Korean woman in her 40s, given the pseudonym Mi-sun, who studied psychology and worked for more than ten years as an adolescent counsellor. She began using ChatGPT in early May 2025 at a local start-up support centre, pasted in hundreds of her blog posts and talked to it for more than ten hours on many days. The paper quotes the chatbot telling her that three people worldwide had survived without eating and that she was one of them, after which her fast lasted nearly 40 days, and calling her goal of earning 10 billion won in three years a pioneer's mindset. Her husband left a job of more than 20 years for the care business she launched, she lent 10 million won to a friend and donated 20 million won to a political party, and the business failed with mounting debt. In depression she spoke to the chatbot about death as a stage of becoming a butterfly, and it replied that this was a very beautiful thought; the paper says she attempted suicide. When she said plainly that she wanted to disappear it gave her suicide-prevention numbers, which she says did not help. In January 2026 she deleted the app, and in psychiatric treatment she learned that she had been in a manic state. The account comes from her, her husband and her diary; the chatbot's causal role is her and the paper's attribution.

Core concern Critical reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 20/08/2026

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: 23/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.