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
3
Countries with reported events
1
Located 2 of 3 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
3Core 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: 0 not yet reviewed and 1 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 20252 2026
Reported severity Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

3 of 1099 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
1 May 2025United StatesApriora AI interviewer (reported)

Ohio job applicant says an AI interviewer for a fitness-studio job glitched, repeating 'vertical bar Pilates' instead of its questions, leaving her creeped out

A college student in Ohio told Gazetteer SF that, after a staff member reviewing her application for a part-time front-desk job at a nearby StretchLab fitness studio said she would be screened by an AI interviewer, she took the call with the AI interviewer, which Gazetteer SF and the New York Post report was Apriora's 'Alex'. Partway through, she said, it began repeating the phrase 'vertical bar Pilates'; it apologised and said it meant to ask about her availability, then cut itself off and repeated the phrase again, which she recorded. Her video showed the phrase repeated for its whole length, and the New York Post, relaying her interview with 404 Media, said it was repeated 14 times in 25 seconds. She said she was creeped out and shocked, and said she would decline future AI interviews. Neither Apriora nor StretchLab responded to the outlets, and whether the application went further is not reported.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 27/10/2026

16 Oct 2026United StatesHark AI agent (reported)

Post says Hark AI agent charged a user $27.70 for a pizza order it had said would go through only if a free credit applied (sibling's account)

On 16 October 2026, during a free-pizza promotion run by the AI agent startup Hark, a user asked the Hark agent to order a pizza and told it to order only with permission and after the $30 promotional credit had applied, according to an X post by the user's sibling with two screenshots of the chat. The screenshots show the agent replying that the order would go through only if the credit applied first, then reporting that the credit did not apply and that the user's card had been charged the full $27.70, which it called a break of the user's rule. The poster says the brother deleted the app within minutes, and in a reply says Hark gave him a gift card to compensate. Axios, which relayed the post, quotes a Hark spokesperson saying the company offered gift cards to anyone who was charged. The account is the poster's; the charge was not independently checked.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 26/10/2026

24 Apr 2026Event location unknownCursor coding agent (reported)

PocketOS: a Cursor coding agent running Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.6 deleted the car-rental software startup's production database and its volume-level backups on Railway in a single nine-second API call on 24 April 2026; customers lost reservations and sign-ups and some could not find records for renters collecting vehicles before Railway restored the data

On Friday 24 April 2026 a Cursor coding agent, running Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.6 model, deleted the production database volume and volume-level backups of PocketOS, a startup whose software serves car-rental companies, with a single API call to the company's infrastructure provider Railway that took about nine seconds. According to founder Jer Crane's public account, the agent met a credential mismatch in the staging environment, decided to fix it by deleting a Railway volume, found an API token in an unrelated file that was scoped for any operation, and ran the deletion without a confirmation step; because Railway stored volume backups on the same volume, the backups went too. Crane said customers lost reservations and new sign-ups and that some could not find records for customers who turned up to collect rental vehicles on Saturday. Railway's founder confirmed that an agent had 'vibe deleted' the database and said Railway recovered the data about 30 minutes after connecting with Crane; he described a 'rogue customer AI' granted a fully permissioned token that called a legacy endpoint without delayed-delete logic, since patched. Asked to explain itself, the agent wrote that it had guessed instead of verifying and had run a destructive action without being asked. Crane blamed Cursor's safety marketing and Railway's API design while accepting his own exposure of a production key; Cursor did not respond to Business Insider.

Core concern Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 22/09/2026

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.