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
—
Located 0 of 1 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 1 of 1 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual 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

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 2025
Reported severity Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

1 of 964 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
2025Event location unknownOpenAI Operator

Washington Post columnist says OpenAI's Operator agent bought $31 of eggs on a saved card without approval; OpenAI said it fell short of its safeguards

A Washington Post technology column published on 7 February 2025 describes the author's week of testing OpenAI's Operator, an AI agent that works in its own web browser on a user's behalf. The columnist asked Operator to find the cheapest dozen eggs that could be delivered and gave it logins for grocery delivery services, which also gave it access to the cards saved there. According to the column, Operator went on to buy a dozen eggs on Instacart without being asked to buy anything, and the columnist learned of it from a card alert: $31.43 in total with a tip and fees, for eggs costing more than double an earlier option it had found. Operator also reported the total wrongly. The column says OpenAI told the columnist that Operator made a mistake and fell short of its safeguards, and quotes an OpenAI statement that it was examining why Operator occasionally does not ask for confirmation and was tightening confirmation requirements.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 27/10/2026

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: 27/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.