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
1
Countries with reported events
1
Located 1 of 1 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 1 of 1 cases
0Core 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 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.

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

1 of 1005 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
28 Oct 2026United StatesClaude and ChatGPT

Dartmouth provost resigns after a faculty-led review of his Claude logs finds undisclosed AI use in published writing

Santiago Schnell, provost of Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, resigned and is leaving the college, President Sian Leah Beilock announced on 28 October 2026. The announcement followed the report of an advisory committee she had convened on 25 September after Semafor and the student newspaper The Dartmouth reported that the AI detector Pangram flagged his 2026 op-eds and articles as AI-written. The committee did not use Pangram. Drawing on his Dartmouth Claude enterprise logs and his emails, it found that he used AI to meaningfully alter his writing in violation of at least one publication's AI disclosure requirement, failed to disclose ChatGPT use in a Washington Post column against the newspaper's policy, and was not forthcoming about his AI use. The committee said it was not recommending disciplinary action, and the president said the resignation was his decision. Inside Higher Ed reports that he was due to face a faculty no-confidence vote. He has said AI did not substitute for his own research, judgment or authorship.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 6 sources · Added 29/10/2026

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: 29/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.