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 is wider: it also records consequential decisions and claims about people. 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
2
Located 2 of 2 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
Recorded for 2 of 2 cases
10Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 2Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

3 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 3 not yet reviewed and 0 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

4 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.

2 2023
Reported severity HighLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 404 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Sept 2023United StatesFlock Safety license plate readers

Indianapolis: five current and former police officers were charged on 23 September 2026 with fraud and official misconduct, one also with stalking, after audits found thousands of Flock automated license-plate-reader searches with no law-enforcement purpose, including one officer's tracking of 11 people (seven women and four men) and another's 1,616 searches that included his ex-wife's plate (WISH-TV, WNDU, WFYI/WVXU, Gizmodo)

On 23 September 2026 the Marion County Prosecutor's Office charged four suspended Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) officers and one former officer with fraud and official misconduct after internal audits in August and September 2026 found misuse of the department's Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader (ALPR) system; one officer was also charged with two counts of stalking. According to prosecutors, the probable cause affidavit and court documents as reported by WISH-TV, that officer made 1,396 searches with no apparent law-enforcement purpose, began searching the plate of a woman he met at a workout class in September 2023 nine days after meeting her and messaged her from a Facebook account under a false name, also tracked his ex-wife and a woman he met at her workplace (telling her he was an FBI agent), and in total conducted unauthorised surveillance of 11 people, seven women and four men. Another officer made 1,616 searches between April 2024 and April 2025 for two plates, one his ex-wife's, using another officer's credentials. The chief placed the officers on desk duty, revoked their ALPR access, suspended four and recommended their dismissal; one resigned. The department said the misuse came to light after an officer self-reported and an audit followed; the prosecutor said each count corresponds to one license plate. IMPD, which leases about 301 Flock cameras and can search a shared national network, has since required every user to sign its ALPR policy, tied each search to a case number, adopted single logins and increased audits, and said it will not reduce its cameras.

Contextual tracker case High reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/09/2026

Nov 2023VietnamUnidentified AI writing tool and Turnitin (reported)

Ho Chi Minh City: a university student lost half the marks on a writing-course essay after the lecturer found AI use, which the lecturer said specialised plagiarism software detects; the vice-rector endorsed the deduction and the student feared failing the course

In November 2023 a student at the Ho Chi Minh City University of Foreign Languages and Information Technology (HUFLIT) wrote on the university's anonymous confessions page that a writing-course essay had been returned with 50 percent of the marks deducted because the lecturer found it had been written with AI. The student said the lecturer had warned that AI-written essays would be treated as plagiarism if detected, had not expected detection, and learned from the lecturer that Vietnamese-to-English translation software could also be counted as AI use when checked with specialised plagiarism software; the student did not know whether the course could still be passed. The vice-rector told Tuoi Tre that the lecturer had told students before the assignment not to use AI applications, that the course tests independent writing, that using an AI support tool breached academic-integrity rules, and that the deduction was appropriate, while noting the university had no formal document on sanctions for AI use. A university representative told Thanh Nien and Dan Tri that the university does not ban AI but requires transparency about tools used, uses paid AI-detection services when necessary, and had not received a formal complaint from the student; a later report said the university had bought Turnitin licences for lecturers to check AI use in essays.

Core + contextual relations Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 4 underlying accounts · 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: 30/09/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.