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

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

1 case 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.

2 2026
Reported severity Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 936 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
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

Mar 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI medical scribe

Reported by ABC News (Australia): an AI scribe used at a urology appointment inserted a false claim that the patient took psychedelic mushrooms into her record; the error reached her GP in a post-operative letter and was corrected only after she complained

A patient who consented to having her first urology appointment transcribed by an artificial-intelligence scribe discovered, after her kidney-stone surgery in March 2026, that the post-operative letter her specialist sent to her GP stated she micro-dosed psychedelic mushrooms and that this could explain earlier bleeding around the kidneys. She says she has never taken mushrooms. She was receiving workers' compensation and feared that any mention of illegal drugs on her medical record could affect her case. After she complained, the urologist sent a letter of apology saying the practice takes documentation accuracy seriously, that she could not determine how the claim came to be included but that it appeared to be an error during the 'dictation or transcription process', that the correspondence had been corrected and that she would review how AI was used in her practice. The doctor did not answer ABC's questions about what changes had been made. Australia's practitioner regulator AHPRA told ABC that clinicians must check all AI-scribe output; the patient says it was clear her doctor had not. The account is a single ABC News report (14 August 2026) based on the patient's interview and the letters she received; the scribe product and the clinic's location are not named.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 20/09/2026

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: 26/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.