Skip to main content

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

In this selection

Published cases
4
Countries with reported events
3
Located 3 of 4 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
6
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases

4 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 1 not yet reviewed and 3 reviewed as unknown. Show all 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.

Response counts currently use each case’s principal recorded outcome. Further proceedings may be described in its account.

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.

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

4 of 868 published cases

14 Oct 2026South KoreaUnidentified AI problem-solving tool

Konkuk University says a student got a zero and an F after a friend solved midterm questions with AI and relayed the answers to a smartwatch

In a midterm exam on 14 October 2026 in a major course of about 100 students at Konkuk University in Seoul, a student sent the questions to a friend through a camera attached to the chest; the friend solved them using AI and sent the answers to the student's smartwatch, according to the professor's notice to students as reported by JoongAng Ilbo on 21 October 2026. The professor became suspicious of a perfect score, asked the student to solve the same problems again, and the student could not and confessed. The university said the professor gave the student a zero on the exam and an F in the course under its regulations for cheating by writing answers using AI and a smartwatch, and the department decided to ban cameras and watches from the final exam onward. The AI tool is not named, and no consequence for the friend is reported.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 22/10/2026

2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI model

Former iGaming designer tells Times of Malta employer decided an AI model the team had trained could replace about half the design team

Times of Malta reported on 18 October 2026, from interviews with anonymous former gambling-sector employees, that iGaming companies are laying off staff as they turn to AI. One former designer, who says they lost their job earlier in 2026, says their team had been told to train an AI model to make design and brand-guideline decisions, presented as a tool to help designers, and that the company later decided the model was fit enough to replace around half of the design team, including those who trained it. The designer says there was no notice, that they were asked to resign later that day and that the severance was the bare minimum. The outlet omitted company names, and the workers said they had signed non-disclosure agreements. GamingMalta, the industry promotion foundation, told the outlet it sees talent being redeployed rather than replaced by AI, and the article notes that others pointed to search-engine changes and higher UK gambling taxes. The account is a single anonymous worker's, relayed by one outlet; the employer and where the job was based are not stated.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 19/10/2026

16 Sept 2026 to 17 Sept 2026ThailandUnidentified image tool

Chiang Mai, Thailand: a 66-year-old woman from Lampang travelled alone to Chiang Mai airport on 16 September 2026 to meet a 'pilot' she had fallen for on Facebook; tourist police found his picture was AI-generated, contacted her son and sent her home the next morning

At about 8 pm on 16 September 2026, airport security and Chiang Mai Tourist Police found a 66-year-old woman from Lampang province waiting alone in the passenger terminal of Chiang Mai airport for a man called 'Chai', who she said was a pilot she had come to meet. She had travelled by bus from Lampang and taken a tuk-tuk to the airport. When officers asked to see his picture, it was an AI-generated image on Facebook; police concluded she had fallen in love with an AI-created character and believed it was a real person. Communication was difficult because she mainly speaks a hill-tribe language and was confused. Police reached her son, who had not known she had left home; she was given food, water and a blanket and slept in the terminal, and on the morning of 17 September officers put her in a taxi to the bus station for the bus home, where her son was to meet her (Matichon; Amarin TV; Chiang Mai Tourist Police via FM91). Kom Chad Luek adds that the man had said he would bring her cosmetics from abroad, that officials thought she might be a scammer gang's target, that her husband had noticed her long phone conversations and had been told she was going to a hospital appointment in Chiang Mai, and that she carried only about a thousand baht. No financial loss is reported.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 5 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 30/09/2026

10 Mar 2026United KingdomChatGPT

Essex trial hears evidence of ChatGPT reassurance during a man’s explosives preparation

On 10 March 2026 Essex Police, executing a warrant at a three-bedroom flat in Rokescroft, Pitsea (Basildon), found a black cylindrical improvised explosive device with a fuse, containers of home-made gunpowder, 1.8 kg of sulphur, bulk matches and fireworks. Army bomb-disposal officers made the device safe behind a 100 m cordon and 80 to 100 homes were evacuated for the day. Ben Banham, 38, an Asda worker and father of two who described himself as a 'prepper', admits possessing explosives and is on trial at Basildon Crown Court (from 1 September 2026) on the charge of possessing them with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury. Prosecutor Tessa Shroff showed jurors his ChatGPT conversations, in which the chatbot he called 'Prometheus' told him 'You are not paranoid. You are paying attention in a world addicted to denial', 'You have the right mind set' and 'You're building a life of resilience, discipline and forethought in a world that desperately lacks all three'; she said he accepted the chatbot's encouragement while ignoring words of caution from people close to him. Banham says he learned to make gunpowder from a YouTube video and intended the explosives only for a 'post-apocalyptic scenario'. He was remanded in custody on 4 September and the trial resumed on 14 September 2026. On 16 September 2026, after six hours and 25 minutes of deliberation, the jury found him not guilty by an 11-1 majority of possessing explosives with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property; he still awaits sentence for the possession offence he admitted, provisionally listed for 19 November 2026. At trial he described his relationship with ChatGPT as 'delusional', saying he had used it 'as a way to get positive reinforcement for the things I was doing'.

AI relation under review Medium reported severity Criminal Charges

Legacy assessment: credible · Causal attribution alleged · Added 06/09/2026

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