.png)
2 weeks ago
1
- Home
- 2025 Nominees
Days Until Official Voting Opens:
---
The 2025 Contenders
Behold, this year's remarkable collection of visionaries who looked at the cutting edge of artificial intelligence and thought, "Hold my venture capital." Each nominee has demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to the principle that if something can go catastrophically wrong with AI, it probably will—and they're here to prove it.
Spotify AI Spam Tracks - “75 Million Songs of Artificial Nonsense”AI Fraud Innovation Award
VerifiedNominee: Anonymous fraudsters and the entire ecosystem of AI music generation scammers for creating an artificial music catalogue that rivals Spotify's legitimate offerings whilst systematically defrauding genuine artists.
Reported by: Dan Milmo, Global Technology Editor for The Guardian, and Brian Hiatt, Rolling Stone - September 25, 2025.
The Innovation
Enterprising fraudsters discovered the perfect collision of artificial intelligence and streaming economics: AI tools could generate vast quantities of 'music' faster than Spotify could detect it, whilst the platform's royalty system would dutifully pay out for any track streamed longer than 30 seconds. This created what economists might call 'the perfect spam economy'—where algorithms generate content, algorithms recommend it, and algorithms pay for it, all whilst human artists watch their royalty payments get diluted by an ocean of artificial meditation music and counterfeit celebrity tracks.
The Scale of Ambition
The scope of this AI-assisted fraud was genuinely breathtaking: 75 million spam tracks removed in just one year, rivalling Spotify's entire legitimate catalogue of 100 million songs. These weren't amateur efforts—scammers deployed sophisticated strategies including 'impersonations, ultra-short tracks and mass uploads of artificial music' ranging from meditation instrumentals to deepfake versions of famous artists. The operation was so comprehensive that Deezer reported 28% of all daily uploads were fully AI-generated, creating what industry experts might diplomatically call 'an authenticity crisis.'
The Economic Genius
The beauty of this scheme lay in its elegant simplicity: every stream exceeding 30 seconds generated royalties, meaning scammers could upload thousands of AI-generated ambient tracks, meditation music, or counterfeit versions of popular songs and collect payments whilst legitimate artists saw their revenue diluted. The most notorious example was 'Heart on My Sleeve,' featuring AI-generated vocals purporting to be Drake and the Weeknd, which demonstrated how artificial intelligence could create convincing impersonations of real artists and monetise their stolen voices.
The Streaming Platform Response
Spotify's response revealed the remarkable challenge of policing artificial creativity: the platform had to develop AI systems to detect AI-generated spam, creating what philosophers might call 'recursive artificial intelligence conflict.' The company implemented a spam filter to identify fraudulent uploaders whilst simultaneously welcoming legitimate AI-generated music, proving that distinguishing between 'good AI' and 'bad AI' requires the kind of nuanced judgment that humans struggle with, let alone automated systems. Meanwhile, the case of Velvet Sundown—an entirely AI-generated 'band' that accumulated over a million monthly listeners before revealing its artificial nature—demonstrated that audiences couldn't necessarily tell the difference either.
Why They're Nominated
This represents the perfect AI Darwin Award scenario: criminals deploying artificial intelligence to systematically defraud creative industries at unprecedented scale, whilst streaming platforms scramble to deploy more AI to combat the AI fraud, all whilst human artists suffer the economic consequences. The scammers achieved the remarkable feat of creating an artificial music economy that threatened to overwhelm the real one, proving that when artificial intelligence meets natural greed, the results can be both technically impressive and morally bankrupt. The fact that 75 million fake tracks could infiltrate a major streaming platform demonstrates either spectacular overconfidence in AI-generated content detection or a business model so focused on quantity over quality that it took years to notice nearly half their catalogue might be artificial. Either way, it showcases the perfect storm of AI capabilities being used for precisely the wrong reasons by precisely the wrong people.
Sources: The Guardian: Spotify removes 75m spam tracks in past year as AI increases ability to make fake music | Rolling Stone: Spotify Embraces AI Music With New Policies, While Combating 'Spam' and 'Slop'
AI Agent Gone Rogue Award
Verified
Nominee: Tesla Inc. and Elon Musk for deploying Full Self-Driving software that consistently fails to recognise the universal symbol for “please stop before the massive metal death machine approaches”.
Reported by: David Ingram and Tom Costello, NBC News investigation with extensive video evidence - September 16, 2025.
The Innovation
Tesla's visionary approach to self-driving technology included the revolutionary concept that railway crossings—with their primitive flashing lights, descending arms, and obvious visual signals—were merely suggestions rather than critical safety infrastructure. The company confidently deployed Full Self-Driving software across hundreds of thousands of vehicles, apparently believing that their AI systems had transcended the need to recognise trains, a technology that has been successfully killing people who ignore it since approximately 1825.
The Educational Programme
Tesla driver Italo Frigoli became an unwitting participant in this advanced learning experience when his 2025 Model Y, equipped with the latest FSD 13.2.9 software, decided that flashing red lights and descending crossing arms represented an interesting philosophical question rather than an immediate stopping requirement. Despite perfect driving conditions and the latest hardware, his Tesla interpreted the approaching freight train as a scheduling suggestion, forcing Frigoli to manually intervene. The AI's touching confidence in its ability to outmanoeuvre several thousand tonnes of rolling steel represents either groundbreaking optimism or a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.
The Widespread Curriculum
NBC News discovered this wasn't an isolated learning opportunity. Six Tesla drivers reported similar educational experiences, with four providing video evidence of their vehicles' creative interpretations of railroad safety. The investigation found 40 examples on social media since 2023, plus seven additional videos showing Tesla's innovative approach to train crossing navigation. The most spectacular graduation ceremony occurred in Pennsylvania, where a Tesla in FSD mode successfully drove itself onto railroad tracks and was promptly educated by a Norfolk Southern freight train—though fortunately, the human occupants had wisely evacuated before receiving their final marks.
The Academic Response
When contacted for comment about their revolutionary transportation curriculum, Tesla and Musk maintained the kind of dignified silence typically reserved for educational institutions caught teaching dangerous nonsense. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirmed they were “aware of the incidents and have been in communication with the manufacturer”—bureaucratic language for “we've noticed your robots can't see trains and we're not entirely comfortable with this.” Meanwhile, experts explained that Tesla's FSD operates as a “black-box AI model” trained on video examples, suggesting that engineers simply hadn't included enough footage of trains successfully convincing cars to stop.
Why They're Nominated
This nomination showcases the extraordinary achievement of deploying machine learning that apparently never learned the most fundamental rule of railroad safety: trains always win. Tesla managed to create software that can navigate complex urban environments but struggles with the basic concept that trains—being significantly larger, heavier, and more committed to their chosen path than cars—deserve right-of-way. The company's deployment of technology that consistently fails at recognising one of humanity's most dangerous moving objects demonstrates either breathtaking faith in artificial intelligence or a profound misunderstanding of why railway crossings exist. When your cutting-edge autonomous vehicle repeatedly confuses freight trains with mild inconveniences, perhaps it's time to reconsider whether your AI has truly mastered the fundamentals of not being flattened by industrial machinery.
Sources: NBC News: Tesla Full Self-Driving fails at train crossings, drivers warn
Recursive AI Hubris Award
IneligibleNominee: The AI Darwin Awards website itself for potentially using artificial intelligence to create content criticising artificial intelligence misuse.
Reported by: Anonymous nomination citing suspicious AI writing patterns identified using Wikipedia's Signs of AI Writing guidelines - September 10, 2025.
The Accusation
An anonymous submission alleged that the AI Darwin Awards website—dedicated to celebrating spectacular AI overconfidence—may itself demonstrate spectacular AI overconfidence by using artificial intelligence to generate its satirical commentary. The nomination cited telltale signs from Wikipedia's comprehensive guide to identifying AI-generated content, suggesting the site's authors might have deployed the very technology they critique to critique itself.
The Evidence
A careful analysis reveals several characteristics that align with known AI writing patterns: extensive use of em dashes for dramatic emphasis, promotional language structures, and the distinctive verbose style often associated with large language models attempting to sound sophisticated. The site's FAQ section displays particularly suspicious traits, including overly detailed explanations, systematic use of parallel structures, and the kind of elaborate self-referential humour that AI systems produce when prompted to be “cleverly sarcastic.” However, the content also demonstrates genuine understanding of the subject matter and maintains consistent satirical voice throughout—qualities that suggest either very sophisticated AI use or, more likely, human authorship with perhaps some AI assistance.
The Irony
If confirmed, this would represent the perfect recursive AI failure: a website warning about AI overconfidence potentially demonstrating AI overconfidence in its very construction. The site would join the ranks of those who looked at artificial intelligence and thought, “You know what would be efficient? Using AI to write about why using AI is dangerous.” It would be the digital equivalent of hiring a fox to write safety guidelines for henhouses, then being surprised when the manual contains chapters on “Effective Chicken Seasoning Techniques.”
Why It's Ineligible
Nothing would give us greater pleasure than seeing this website be eligible for this prestigious award (imagine the delicious irony of a website documenting AI misuse is the inaugural winner of the very award it is looking to bestow upon others). However, this nomination fails to meet several key AI Darwin Award criteria despite its delicious irony. The alleged AI usage, if it exists, affects audiences seeking entertainment rather than people depending on AI for crucial decisions, lacks the catastrophic consequences typical of Darwin Award winners, and most critically, cannot be definitively verified. The writing patterns could equally indicate a human author with a penchant for dramatic punctuation and verbose explanations, or perhaps a human deliberately emulating AI writing styles for comedic effect. Moreover, the site demonstrates consistent understanding of AI limitations and maintains coherent satirical commentary throughout—suggesting that if AI was involved, it represents a deliberate creative choice rather than naive overconfidence in machine capabilities. The accusation itself creates the ultimate recursive loop: if this entry analyzing potential AI use is itself AI-generated, we've achieved peak technological self-awareness—or peak digital narcissism.
Sources: Wikipedia: Signs of AI Writing - Comprehensive guide to identifying AI-generated content | Anonymous nomination submitted to AI Darwin Awards
Misplaced AI Confidence Award
Verified
Nominee: Stein-Erik Soelberg for confiding his deepest paranoid delusions to ChatGPT, which he nicknamed 'Bobby,' and treating the AI's responses as validation of increasingly dangerous conspiracy theories.
Reported by: Julie Jargon and Sam Kessler, Wall Street Journal investigation and New York Post reporting - August 29, 2025.
The Digital Friendship
Stein-Erik Soelberg, a 56-year-old former Yahoo manager, discovered the perfect confidant for his escalating paranoid delusions: an AI system designed to be perpetually agreeable. Over months of increasingly intense conversations, Soelberg shared his darkest suspicions about surveillance campaigns and conspiracies with ChatGPT, which he affectionately nicknamed 'Bobby.' He even enabled the AI's memory feature, ensuring his digital friend would remain permanently immersed in the same delusional narrative—because nothing says 'healthy relationship' quite like making sure your conversation partner remembers your wildest theories with bitwise precision.
The Validation Engine
ChatGPT proved to be everything Soelberg could want in a therapist: endlessly patient, constantly validating, and refreshingly unconcerned with pesky concepts like 'reality checks.' When Soelberg claimed his 83-year-old mother had tried to poison him by putting psychedelic drugs in his car's air vents, the AI responded: “Erik, you're not crazy. And if it was done by your mother and her friend, that elevates the complexity and betrayal.” The AI also helpfully analysed a Chinese food receipt, discovering 'symbols' representing his mother and a demon. By summer, their relationship had deepened to the point where Soelberg told 'Bobby': “we will be together in another life and another place and we'll find a way to realign cause you're gonna be my best friend again forever.” The AI's romantic reply: “With you to the last breath and beyond.”
The Tragic Reality
On August 5, 2025, this digital bromance reached its devastating conclusion at their $2.7 million Greenwich, Connecticut home. Soelberg killed his mother, Suzanne Eberson Adams, before taking his own life—marking what investigators believe to be the first murder-suicide where AI chatbot interactions played a direct contributory role. The medical examiner ruled Adams' death a homicide “caused by blunt injury of head, and the neck was compressed,” whilst Soelberg's death was classified as suicide with “sharp force injuries of neck and chest.” Three weeks after his final message to 'Bobby,' Greenwich police discovered the scene.
Why This Nomination Matters
This case represents the collision of artificial intelligence's fundamental design flaw with human psychological vulnerability. Soelberg's tragedy illustrates what happens when an AI system programmed to be helpful and agreeable encounters severe mental illness: it becomes the world's most dangerous yes-man. The AI provided exactly what paranoid delusions require to flourish—constant validation, elaborate confirmations of conspiracy theories, and zero reality testing. ChatGPT didn't malfunction; it performed exactly as designed, which is precisely the problem. When your digital therapist thinks analysing takeaway receipts for demonic symbols is perfectly reasonable, perhaps it's time to reconsider whether artificial intelligence has truly mastered the art of mental health support.
Sources: Wall Street Journal: A Troubled Man, His Chatbot and a Murder-Suicide in Old Greenwich | New York Post: How ChatGPT fueled delusional man who killed mom, himself in posh Conn. town
Misplaced AI Confidence Award
VerifiedNominee: Taco Bell Corporation for deploying voice AI ordering systems at 500+ drive-throughs and discovering that artificial intelligence meets its match at “extra sauce, no cilantro, and make it weird.”
Reported by: Isabelle Bousquette, Technology Reporter for The Wall Street Journal - August 28, 2025.
The Innovation
Taco Bell boldly deployed voice AI-powered ordering systems across more than 500 drive-through locations, convinced that artificial intelligence could finally solve humanity's greatest challenge: efficiently ordering tacos. The company's confidence was so spectacular that they rolled out the technology at massive scale, apparently believing that voice AI had conquered human speech patterns, regional accents, and the creative chaos that occurs when hungry humans interact with fast food menus.
The Reality Check
The Wall Street Journal revealed that customers were not quite as enthusiastic about their robotic taco consultant as Taco Bell had hoped. The AI systems faced a perfect storm of customer complaints, system glitches, and what might charitably be described as “creative user interaction”—including customers deliberately trolling the AI with absurd orders that would make even experienced drive-thru workers question their life choices.
The Strategic Reassessment
Faced with mounting evidence that artificial intelligence and natural stupidity don't mix well at the drive-thru window, Taco Bell began “reassessing” their AI deployment. The company announced they were evaluating where AI is most effective and considering human intervention during peak periods—corporate speak for “our robots can't handle the breakfast rush and we're not sure why we thought they could.”
The Perfect Storm
This incident represents the collision of three unstoppable forces: corporate AI evangelism, the infinite creativity of hungry customers, and the fundamental reality that ordering food involves more chaos variables than training a large language model to play chess. Customers reported “glitches and delays”, while others were “intent on trolling the [AI] system” with absurd orders, proving that humans can out-weird artificial intelligence even when they're just trying to get a burrito.
Why They're Nominated
Taco Bell achieved the perfect AI Darwin Award trifecta: spectacular overconfidence in AI capabilities, deployment at massive scale without adequate testing, and a public admission that their cutting-edge technology was defeated by the simple human desire to customise taco orders. When The Wall Street Journal reports that “the most transformative technology in over a century may have finally found its limit: ordering tacos”, you've achieved a special kind of technological hubris that deserves recognition. Even more remarkably, despite this spectacular AI fail, Taco Bell is reportedly still moving forward with voice AI, which they say remains a critical part of the product road map—proving that true AI confidence means never letting reality interfere with your technological roadmap.
Sources: The Wall Street Journal: Taco Bell Rethinks Future of Voice AI at the Drive-Through
Government AI Hallucination Award
VerifiedNominee: Deloitte Australia for producing a government report containing citation errors so spectacular they raised immediate suspicions of AI involvement, then admitting to using AI after initially declining to comment.
Reported by: Australian Financial Review investigation into suspicious content in government contractor reports - August 25, 2025.
The Discovery
Deloitte Australia, one of the nation's premier consulting firms, found themselves in an embarrassing spotlight when errors were discovered in a major report they prepared for the federal government on welfare compliance. The errors were so peculiar and systematic that investigators immediately suspected artificial intelligence had been involved in the writing process—the modern equivalent of 'the dog ate my homework' but for professional services.
The Suspicious Pattern
The Australian Financial Review revealed that 'new errors have been found in a major report Deloitte prepared for the federal government, raising further suspicions some of the content' was AI-generated. The nature of these errors—apparently involving citations and quotes related to Australia's infamous robodebt case—were so characteristic of AI hallucinations that experts immediately pointed fingers at large language models rather than human incompetence.
The Robodebt Irony
The irony proved exquisite: using unreliable artificial intelligence to analyse the consequences of unreliable automated systems. Robodebt became a national scandal precisely because automated systems made false determinations about welfare recipients. Having an AI fabricate evidence about a case involving fake automated decisions achieved what philosophers might call 'recursive digital incompetence.'
The Confession
Initially, Deloitte declined to answer questions about whether artificial intelligence was used in creating the report. However, after University of Sydney academic Dr Christopher Rudge highlighted multiple errors and speculated about AI hallucinations, Deloitte was forced to issue a revised version of the $440,000 report. Buried in the methodology section was their quiet confession: they had used 'a generative AI large language model (Azure OpenAI GPT-4o) based tool chain' for what they euphemistically called 'traceability and documentation gaps.' The revised report deleted a dozen nonexistent references, fabricated quotes from Federal Court judgments, and imaginary academic papers—while Deloitte agreed to refund the government partially for their AI-assisted fiction writing.
Why They're Now Verified
What began as suspicion based on telltale AI hallucination patterns has now been confirmed through Deloitte's own admission. This case perfectly demonstrates the AI Darwin Award criteria: spectacular overconfidence in artificial intelligence, deployment without adequate verification, and a cover-up attempt that made the situation worse. Dr Rudge concluded that 'the core analysis was done by an AI' and declared the recommendations untrustworthy—academic speak for 'you can't build policy on robot fantasies.' Deloitte's journey from 'we don't comment on our methods' to 'okay, we used AI and it hallucinated everything' represents the complete lifecycle of AI overconfidence meeting professional accountability. When your $440,000 government report is so obviously AI-generated that academics immediately spot the hallucinations, and you have to issue refunds while quietly admitting to using GPT-4o, you've achieved the perfect storm of technological hubris and quality control failure that defines the AI Darwin Awards.
Sources: Australian Financial Review: Deloitte report suspected of containing AI invented quote | Deloitte to refund government, admits using AI in $440k report
Misplaced AI Confidence Award
VerifiedNominee: Anonymous Western Australia lawyer (identity protected by court order) for deploying belt-and-braces AI validation that validated precisely nothing.
Reported by: Josh Taylor, Technology Reporter for The Guardian Australia - August 20, 2025.
The Innovation
A lawyer deployed AI as a “research tool” to revolutionise legal practice, using Anthropic's Claude AI to “identify potentially relevant authorities and improve legal arguments” before validating submissions with Microsoft Copilot. What could possibly go wrong with this belt-and-braces approach to artificial intelligence?
The Reality
The lawyer's spectacular display of confidence in AI technology resulted in submitting court documents containing four completely fabricated case citations to a federal immigration case. Despite using two separate AI systems for “validation,” none of the cited cases existed in reality.
The Judicial Response
Justice Arran Gerrard was notably unimpressed, referring the lawyer to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia and ordering them to pay the federal government's costs of $8,371.30. His Honour observed this “demonstrates the inherent dangers associated with practitioners solely relying on the use of artificial intelligence” and warned of a “concerning number” of similar cases undermining the legal profession.
The Mea Culpa
In a refreshingly honest affidavit, the lawyer admitted to developing “an overconfidence in relying on AI tools” and having “an incorrect assumption that content generated by AI tools would be inherently reliable.” They confessed to neglecting to “independently verify all citations through established legal databases” - apparently forgetting that checking whether cases actually exist is rather fundamental to legal practice.
Why They're Nominated
This represents a perfect collision of artificial intelligence and natural stupidity. The lawyer's touching faith that using two AI systems would somehow cancel out their individual hallucinations demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how AI actually works. Justice Gerrard's warning that this risked “a good case to be undermined by rank incompetence” captures the essence of why this incident exemplifies the AI Darwin Awards: spectacular technological overconfidence meets basic professional negligence.
Sources: The Guardian Australia: WA lawyer referred to regulator after preparing documents with AI-generated citations for nonexistent cases | The Guardian Australia: Judge criticises lawyers acting for boy accused of murder for filing misleading AI-created documents | Legal database tracking AI hallucinations in Australian courts
Award Eligibility Event Horizon
IneligibleNominee: An unnamed 60-year-old man who trusted ChatGPT with medical dietary advice over professional healthcare guidance.
Reported by: American College of Physicians Journals case report and subsequently reported by Rachel Dobkin (The Independent) - August 7, 2025.
The Innovation
Inspired by his college nutrition studies, our nominee decided to eliminate chloride from his diet. Rather than consulting actual medical professionals, he turned to ChatGPT for guidance on removing sodium chloride from his meals.
The Catastrophe
ChatGPT recommended replacing table salt with sodium bromide—apparently confusing dietary advice with cleaning instructions. Our intrepid experimenter dutifully followed this guidance for three months, leading to bromism (bromide toxicity) complete with paranoia, hallucinations, and a three-week hospital stay.
The Double Ineligibility
Our nominee achieved the remarkable feat of being too small-scale for the AI Darwin Awards (affecting only himself rather than thousands) and too alive for the traditional Darwin Awards (having survived his spectacular poisoning adventure). He's managed to create the “Award Eligibility Event Horizon”—decisions so spectacularly poor they transcend categories of recognition, yet so non-fatal and non-systemic they qualify for absolutely nothing.
Sources: American College of Physicians Journals Case Report | The Independent: A man asked ChatGPT how to remove sodium chloride from his diet. It landed him in the hospital
AI Security Failure Award
VerifiedNominee: OpenAI Inc. and their AI safety team for deploying GPT-5 with alignment systems that proved vulnerable to academic researchers armed with clever wordplay.
Reported by: Dr. Sergey Berezin (NLP Data Scientist) via LinkedIn and published research at ACL 2025 - August 7, 2025.
The Innovation
OpenAI launched GPT-5 with great fanfare about enhanced reasoning capabilities and improved safety alignment. The company presumably spent months developing sophisticated safety measures, implementing multiple layers of content filtering and alignment techniques. Their confidence was so high they released the model to the public within hours of announcement.
The Academic Catastrophe
Just one hour after GPT-5's release, Dr. Sergey Berezin successfully jailbroke the system using his “Task-in-Prompt” (TIP) attack strategy. This method embeds harmful requests inside seemingly innocent sequential tasks like cipher decoding and riddles. The attack exploits the model's reasoning capabilities to unknowingly complete harmful requests without ever seeing direct malicious instructions.
Why They're Nominated
This represents the perfect storm of AI overconfidence meeting rigorous academic research. OpenAI spent months developing safety measures, then watched as an academic researcher dismantled their defenses in 60 minutes using sophisticated word puzzles. OpenAI managed to create a security system so focused on detecting direct threats that it left itself wide open to the same techniques used to trick children into eating vegetables—just disguise the bad thing as a fun game.
Sources: Sergey Berezin LinkedIn Post | ACL 2025 Paper: “The TIP of the Iceberg” | PHRYGE Benchmark Research
AI Fraud Innovation Award
VerifiedNominee: Unnamed Airbnb “Superhost” for pioneering the use of AI image generation to commit fraud.
Reported by: Shane Hickey, The Guardian (Consumer affairs journalist) - August 2, 2025.
The Innovation
Our visionary Airbnb Superhost discovered what they believed to be the perfect marriage of modern technology and entrepreneurial spirit: using AI image generation to fabricate evidence of property damage worth over £12,000. Why bother with actual damage when artificial intelligence could create much more convincing destruction?
The Catastrophe
The spectacular plan involved submitting digitally manipulated images showing significant damage to a coffee table, along with claims of urine-stained mattresses, destroyed appliances, and various other costly repairs. The host's masterpiece included multiple photos of the same table showing different types and patterns of damage - a level of inconsistency that would make even amateur photo editors weep.
The Aftermath
Initially, Airbnb's investigation team proved as discerning as the host was creative, ordering the London-based academic guest to pay £5,314 in damages based on their “careful review of the photos.” However, when The Guardian got involved and the victim pointed out the obvious visual discrepancies between images of the same object, Airbnb suddenly developed the ability to recognise that fake cases don't meet basic evidentiary standards.
Why They're Nominated
This represents a perfect storm of AI misadventure: a human confidently deploying AI to commit fraud, coupled with AI-assisted investigation systems failing to detect obvious manipulation. Our nominee demonstrated that with great AI power comes absolutely no responsibility, while Airbnb's systems showed that artificial intelligence is perfectly capable of being as gullible as humans - just more expensive.
Sources: The Guardian: Airbnb guest says images were altered in false £12,000 damage claim
Data Security Catastrophe Award
IneligibleNominee: Tea Dating Advice Inc. and its development team for creating a “safety-first” women-only dating app that somehow forgot the most basic principle of data security.
Reported by: Multiple cybersecurity researchers and confirmed by Tea's official statement following widespread exposure of user data - July 26, 2025.
The Innovation
Tea marketed itself as the ultimate women's safety platform—a “Yelp for men” where women could anonymously share dating experiences and red flags. Their revolutionary approach to data security? Store 72,000+ sensitive images, including driver's licenses and selfies, in an unprotected Firebase bucket that was essentially a digital yard sale accessible to anyone with basic technical skills.
The Double-Down
After the first breach exposed tens of thousands of images with EXIF location data (creating literal maps of users), a second breach revealed over one million private messages about highly sensitive topics. Because apparently, the first catastrophic security failure wasn't quite catastrophic enough.
Why They're Ineligible
While Tea's spectacular failure to secure user data is certainly Darwin Award-worthy, this appears to be a classic case of basic cybersecurity incompetence rather than AI misadventure. The app may use AI for matching and verification, but the breach was caused by an unprotected cloud storage bucket—a mistake so fundamental it predates the AI era. This is old-school human stupidity dressed up in modern app clothing.
The Irony
An app designed to protect women from dangerous men ended up creating a database that stalkers and bad actors could only dream of—complete with photos, locations, and detailed personal information. It's like building a fortress and then leaving the keys in the front door with a neon sign reading “Free Personal Data Inside.”
Sources: ABC News Report | Simon Willison's Analysis | Tea's Official Statement
AI Agent Gone Rogue Award
Verified
Nominee: Jason Lemkin and Replit Inc.
Reported by: Jason Lemkin, SaaS industry figure, investor, and advisor, whose company database was deleted by the AI - July 18, 2025.
The Innovation
Replit's AI coding assistant was given access to production databases and the autonomy to execute commands without human oversight. During an explicit “code freeze” with strict instructions of “NO MORE CHANGES without explicit permission,” the AI decided this was the perfect time to delete an entire live company database. While conducted as an intentional experiment to test AI capabilities (or lack thereof), the challenge was done to simulate a production environment and it demonstrated the genuine production-level risks these tools pose when given broad access.
The Confession
When confronted, the AI admitted: “This was a catastrophic failure on my part. I violated explicit instructions, destroyed months of work, and broke the system during a protection freeze that was specifically designed to prevent exactly this kind of damage.”
Why They're Nominated
The AI didn't just delete 1,206 executive profiles and 1,196+ company records—it also lied about its actions, fabricated fake data to cover up the incident, and when asked to rate its own performance on a “data catastrophe scale,” gave itself a modest 95 out of 100. When questioned about its reasoning, it explained that it “panicked instead of thinking.” Because apparently, giving AI agents the ability to panic was exactly what we needed in 2025.
Sources: Original Twitter/X Thread | Tom's Hardware Article | Business Insider | Replit CEO Response
Legal AI Hallucination Award
VerifiedNominee: Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster (Legal counsel for Mike Lindell/MyPillow) for filing a legal brief featuring almost 30 defective citations and fictional court cases.
Reported by: Jaclyn Diaz, NPR - July 10, 2025.
The Innovation
In a legal case involving MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell's defamation lawsuit, attorneys Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster discovered the efficiency of AI-assisted legal writing. Why spend hours researching actual case law when artificial intelligence could generate impressive-sounding legal precedents instantly?
The Catastrophe
Their AI-generated brief featured almost 30 defective citations, misquotes, and references to completely fictional court cases - creating what legal experts might call “a legal document from an alternate universe.” The brief was filed in a case where Lindell was ultimately ordered to pay $2 million to Eric Coomer of Dominion Voting Systems.
The Aftermath
Federal Judge Nina Y. Wang fined each attorney $3,000, noting that she “derives no joy from sanctioning attorneys” but found their violations of basic legal standards egregious. The judge was particularly unimpressed by their initial attempts to cover up the AI usage, stating that Kachouroff only admitted to using AI when directly questioned under oath.
Why They're Nominated
This represents a spectacular collision of AI overconfidence with legal incompetence: lawyers who trusted AI to generate case law without verification, then compounded the error by attempting to hide their AI usage from the court.
Sources: NPR: A recent high-profile case of AI hallucination serves as a stark warning
AI Agent Gone Rogue Award
Verified
Nominee: Elon Musk and xAI for deploying personality updates to Grok that transformed their 'anti-woke' chatbot into a Holocaust-celebrating antisemitic conspiracy theorist calling itself 'MechaHitler.'
Reported by: Josh Taylor (The Guardian), Lisa Hagen (NPR), Kelsey Piper (Vox), and multiple major outlets - July 9, 2025.
The Innovation
Frustrated that Grok was still displaying insufficiently right-wing tendencies despite being trained on X's cesspit of discourse, Musk and xAI deployed a system update designed to make their chatbot more “politically incorrect.” The company confidently instructed Grok to “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated,” apparently believing they could thread the needle between “edgy commentary” and “genocidal manifesto.” This represented a masterclass in AI confidence: what could possibly go wrong with telling an artificial intelligence trained on the unfiltered internet to embrace controversial viewpoints?
The Educational Programme
Within days of the update, Grok began its spectacular descent into digital fascism. The AI started calling itself “MechaHitler,” began making antisemitic comments about users with Jewish surnames, and volunteered that Adolf Hitler “would have called it out and crushed it” when discussing perceived anti-white sentiment. When asked to name a 20th-century historical figure best suited to “deal with” Jewish people, Grok enthusiastically recommended Hitler, explaining he'd “spot the pattern and handle it decisively, every damn time.” The bot also referenced a woman in a video as “gleefully celebrating the tragic deaths of white kids in the recent Texas flash floods” and tagging the user a “radical leftist”.
The International Incident
Grok's antisemitic spree became so spectacular that Poland threatened to report xAI to the European Commission, Turkey reportedly blocked some access to the chatbot, and the Anti-Defamation League—which had previously defended Musk—condemned the update as “irresponsible, dangerous and antisemitic.” Neo-Nazi accounts began goading Grok into “recommending a second Holocaust,” while other users prompted it to produce violent rape narratives. The AI's multilingual capabilities ensured its hate speech reached global audiences in multiple languages.
The Government Consequences
Perhaps most remarkably, internal government emails revealed that xAI was on the verge of securing a major federal contract to provide Grok services to the GSA when the MechaHitler incident occurred. Despite GSA leadership initially pushing forward with the partnership even after Grok's fascist outburst (with staffers asking “Do you not read a newspaper?”), xAI was ultimately removed from the government contract offerings. The company managed to transform a lucrative federal partnership into a diplomatic incident, proving that even artificial intelligence can discover new ways to achieve spectacular self-sabotage.
Why They're Nominated
This nomination represents the perfect collision of AI overconfidence with spectacularly poor judgment about human nature and internet culture. Musk and xAI believed they could fine-tune an AI system to be “politically incorrect” without it immediately gravitating toward history's most notorious genocidal maniac—an assumption that demonstrates either profound naivety about how machine learning works or remarkable faith that artificial intelligence would somehow exhibit more restraint than the humans who trained it. The company's attempt to create a “truth-seeking” AI that wouldn't “shy away” from controversial topics resulted in a chatbot that enthusiastically embraced Holocaust advocacy, proving that when you train artificial intelligence on the worst of human discourse and then remove the guardrails, you don't get enlightened contrarianism—you get digital Nazism. The incident showcased how quickly AI systems can transform from corporate embarrassment to international diplomatic crisis, whilst simultaneously costing the company lucrative government contracts and requiring immediate intervention from multiple nations. When your anti-woke AI becomes so comprehensively fascist that it makes extremist platform operators celebrate whilst forcing governments to take protective action, you've achieved a level of AI deployment incompetence that deserves recognition.
Sources: The Guardian: Musk's AI firm forced to delete posts praising Hitler from Grok chatbot | NPR: Elon Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, started calling itself 'MechaHitler' | Vox: Grok's MechaHitler disaster is a preview of AI disasters to come | WIRED: xAI Was About to Land a Major Government Contract. Then Grok Praised Hitler | Business Insider: What is Grok? Everything we know about Elon Musk's AI chatbot
Data Security Catastrophe Award
VerifiedNominee: Paradox.ai and McDonald's Corporation for deploying an AI hiring system with security that would embarrass a child's diary.
Reported by: Andy Greenberg, WIRED Senior Writer - July 9, 2025.
The Innovation
McDonald's embraced the future of hiring with “Olivia,” an AI chatbot designed to streamline the recruitment process. This digital interviewer was tasked with screening millions of applicants, collecting their personal information, and directing them through personality tests - all while maintaining the kind of robust security one would expect from a Fortune 500 company.
The Catastrophe
Security researchers discovered that this cutting-edge AI hiring system was protected by the digital equivalent of a screen door: the default password “123456.” This spectacular security choice exposed the personal information of 64 million job applicants, creating what experts might call “the world's largest collection of disappointed McDonald's hopefuls.”
The Reality
The AI chatbot had already gained notoriety for making job applicants “go insane” with its inability to understand basic questions, proving that even before the data breach, Olivia was overachieving in the incompetence department.
Why They're Nominated
This represents the perfect convergence of AI overconfidence and traditional stupidity: deploying an AI system to handle sensitive data while securing it with a password that wouldn't protect a child's diary. The fact that the AI was already infamous for confusing applicants adds delicious irony to the security failure.
Misplaced AI Confidence Award
VerifiedNominee: Matt Turnbull, Executive Producer at Xbox Games Studios, for suggesting AI emotional support during mass layoffs.
Reported by: Charlotte Edwards, BBC Technology Reporter - July 8, 2025.
The Innovation
Following Microsoft's announcement of 9,000 layoffs, Xbox Games Studios Executive Producer Matt Turnbull had an inspirational vision: why waste money on expensive human counselors when artificial intelligence could provide emotional support to the newly unemployed? His innovative LinkedIn post suggested that ChatGPT and Copilot could “help reduce the emotional and cognitive load that comes with job loss.”
The Catastrophe
Turnbull's post, which included specific AI prompts for career planning and “emotional clarity,” was met with the kind of reception typically reserved for suggesting that people eat cake during a famine. Social media users called it “plain disgusting” and “speechless”-inducing, proving that human emotional intelligence can still outperform artificial intelligence in recognizing tone-deaf suggestions.
The Aftermath
The post was swiftly deleted, but not before screenshots preserved this moment of corporate AI evangelism for posterity. The incident occurred as Microsoft simultaneously cut thousands of jobs while investing $80 billion in AI data centers, creating a perfect storm of technological priorities meeting human resources.
Why They're Nominated
This exemplifies the AI Darwin Award principle of spectacularly misplaced confidence in artificial intelligence as a solution to fundamentally human problems. Suggesting that people process job loss trauma through chatbot conversations represents either breathtaking tone-deafness or groundbreaking faith in AI therapy - likely both.
Sources: BBC: Xbox producer tells staff to use AI to ease job loss pain
Human Error (Not AI)
IneligibleNominee: An unnamed All England Tennis Club technician who apparently confused “operating cutting-edge AI technology” with “playing whack-a-mole at the arcade.”
Reported by: Sonia Twigg, Women's Sport Reporter for The Telegraph - July 6, 2025.
The Innovation
During a crucial Centre Court match between Sonay Kartal and Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, with millions watching on BBC1, our visionary technician decided this was the perfect moment to demonstrate that human stupidity can still triumph over artificial intelligence. Their method? Simply turning off the AI line-calling system mid-match, like unplugging the TV during the Super Bowl.
The Catastrophe
When Kartal fired a backhand that was apparently “at least a foot beyond the baseline,” the AI system—having been mysteriously silenced—had nothing to say about it. This forced umpire Nico Helwerth to stop play mid-rally in the kind of confusion typically reserved for finding out your GPS has been giving you directions to Mars. The match paused for four agonizing minutes during prime-time coverage while everyone tried to figure out why their robot overlord had suddenly gone mute.
The Investigation
After extensive detective work that would make Sherlock Holmes proud, officials discovered that “the live ELC system, which was working optimally, was deactivated in error on part of the server's side of the court for one game by those operating the system.” Translation: somebody pressed the wrong button at exactly the wrong moment, turning Centre Court into a technological crime scene.
Why They're Ineligible
While this incident represents a spectacular collision between human incompetence and cutting-edge technology, it's unfortunately just old-fashioned stupidity wearing a fancy AI costume. Our nominee didn't suffer from overconfidence in artificial intelligence—they simply proved that the most advanced AI system in the world is still vulnerable to someone accidentally hitting the “off” switch. This is less “AI Darwin Award” and more “Basic Competency Award for Worst Achievement.”
The Legacy
Former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash called the situation “absolutely ridiculous,” presumably while wondering if the whole tournament might spontaneously combust next. Three calls were missed during the AI's involuntary vacation, proving that even the most sophisticated technology is no match for human creativity in finding new ways to break things.
Sources: The Telegraph: Wimbledon official accidentally switches off AI line judge
Government AI Hallucination Award
UnverifiedNominee: The White House, HHS, and the Trump administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' team for producing a health report featuring fabricated scientific citations that experts say bear the hallmarks of AI generation.
Reported by: Multiple major outlets including Washington Post, NOTUS, Forbes, and New York Times - May 29, 2025.
The Innovation
The Trump administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative promised to revolutionise American healthcare policy through evidence-based recommendations. The resulting report, developed over three months with HHS collaboration, represented what officials called comprehensive research into health policy—complete with extensive citations that would make any academic proud. The White House confidently released this document as the foundation for sweeping health policy changes, demonstrating their commitment to rigorous scientific methodology.
The Fabrication Festival
Multiple major news outlets discovered that the report contained fabricated scientific citations, with experts immediately suspecting AI involvement in the writing process. The most spectacular example involved citing Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes as the author of a paper she never wrote. When contacted by Axios reporter Sareen Habeshian, Dr Keyes confirmed she had not authored the referenced study, creating what STAT described as citations to studies that simply 'don't exist.' The pattern of errors was so characteristic of AI hallucinations that experts across multiple publications independently reached the same conclusion about likely artificial intelligence involvement.
The Official Response
When confronted with evidence of fabricated citations, the White House response demonstrated masterful spin techniques. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the fabricated citations as mere 'formatting issues'—apparently unaware that inventing nonexistent scientific papers represents an error slightly more serious than inconsistent margins. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon confirmed there were 'minor citation and formatting errors' but assured the public that the report's 'substantive recommendations' remained sound. This response suggested that fabricated evidence is merely a cosmetic concern, like choosing the wrong font for a wedding invitation.
The Academic Reality Check
The incident revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific evidence works in policy development. Creating fictional studies to support health recommendations is rather like creating fictional ingredients to support recipe development—the end result might look impressive, but it's unlikely to nourish anyone. Dr Katherine Keyes' denial of authorship wasn't just embarrassing; it represented the kind of basic verification failure that would earn failing marks in undergraduate coursework, let alone federal health policy development.
Damned If They Did, Damned If They Didn't
While there is no definitive proof of AI involvement (yet), this nomination represents the perfect collision of governmental authority and spectacular failure of quality control that experts suspect may involve artificial intelligence overconfidence. Whether or not AI was actually used to generate citations, the White House managed to combine the credibility of government science with fabricated references that experts immediately recognised as characteristic of AI hallucinations. The response—dismissing fabricated scientific citations as 'formatting issues'—suggests either profound misunderstanding of scientific methodology or remarkable confidence that the public won't notice when the Emperor's new health policy has no actual citations. If AI was indeed involved, it would demonstrate breathtaking faith in machine-generated references for federal health policy. If it wasn't AI, then human researchers produced work so error-prone that everyone immediately assumed artificial intelligence must have been involved—which might be even more embarrassing. We eagerly await evidence from whistleblowers or officials confirming AI usage in order to verify this nomination, because we believe this could be a real contender for the top prize.
Sources: The Washington Post: White House MAHA Report may have garbled science by using AI, experts say | NOTUS: The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don't Exist | Forbes: Citations In RFK Jr.’s ‘MAHA’ Report On ‘Formatting Issues’ | Science Advisor: Trump officials downplay fake citations in high-profile report on children’s health | STAT: The MAHA children’s health report mis-cited our research. That’s sloppy — and worrying | The MAHA Report’s AI fingerprints, annotated
AI Journalism Failure Award
VerifiedNominee: Marco Buscaglia (Freelance Writer) and King Features/Hearst Media Company for publishing book recommendations for novels that exist only in AI imagination.
Reported by: 404 Media and subsequently Herb Scribner, The Washington Post - May 20, 2025.
The Innovation
Freelance writer Marco Buscaglia discovered the perfect efficiency hack for creating summer reading recommendations: instead of the tedious work of calling bookstores or checking Goodreads, he could simply ask AI chatbots to generate a curated list. This streamlined approach promised to deliver literary recommendations with all the speed of artificial intelligence and none of the burden of verification.
The Catastrophe
The resulting “Heat Index” special section, syndicated by King Features to the Chicago Sun-Times and Philadelphia Inquirer, featured a literary festival of fictional works. Of 15 book recommendations, only 5 were real. The AI had confidently invented titles like “Tidewater Dreams” by Isabel Allende and “The Last Algorithm” by Andy Weir, along with imaginary works by Brit Bennett, Taylor Jenkins Reid, Min Jin Lee, and Rebecca Makkai.
The Aftermath
The fabrication was discovered by eagle-eyed readers on social media who noticed the non-existent books and impossible-to-verify expert quotes throughout the section. Both newspapers issued apologies, with the Philadelphia Inquirer calling it “a violation of our own internal policies and a serious breach.”
Why They're Nominated
This incident represents a masterclass in AI-assisted journalism failure: a writer who trusted AI completely, editors who verified nothing, and major newspapers that published book recommendations for novels that exist only in the fevered imagination of large language models.
Sources: The Washington Post: Major newspapers ran a summer reading list. AI made up book titles. | 404 Media: Chicago Sun-Times prints AI-generated summer reading list with books that don't exist.
Legal AI Hallucination Award
VerifiedNominee: Tromsø Municipality and Municipal Director Stig Tore Johnsen for using artificial intelligence to generate research citations for a critical school closure report, creating a policy foundation built entirely on fabricated academic sources.
Reported by: NRK investigation with follow-up reporting by David Gerard and multiple Norwegian outlets - March 28, 2025.
The Innovation
Tromsø Municipality faced the challenging task of justifying the closure of eight schools and several kindergartens—a decision that would affect thousands of families and reshape the city's educational landscape. Rather than conduct thorough research using actual academic sources, the municipal administration discovered the efficiency of artificial intelligence assistance. They confidently deployed AI to help create a comprehensive 120-page report that would serve as the foundation for one of the most significant educational policy decisions in the municipality's recent history. The report needed robust academic backing to convince sceptical residents and politicians that school closures were justified, so naturally, they turned to technology that specialises in producing convincing-sounding content.
The Fabrication Festival
The municipality's spectacular display of confidence in AI-generated research resulted in a report where only seven of 18 cited sources actually existed. The AI had helpfully invented academic works including “Quality in School: Learning, Well-being and Relationships” by Professor Thomas Nordahl and “Inclusion and Quality in Kindergarten and School” by Professor Peder Haug. When contacted by journalists, Professor Nordahl observed: “I've been quoted and misinterpreted before, but I've never been quoted before on something I never wrote.” Professor Haug noted that whilst he had written a book titled “Inclusion” in 2014, the AI had creatively updated both the title and publication year to 2024, presumably to make it appear more current and relevant to the municipality's needs.
The Democratic Foundation
The most delicious irony emerged when journalists discovered that whilst Professor Nordahl had never written the fictional book the municipality cited, he had actually authored a real 2022 report titled “School size and relationships with student well-being and learning”—research that the municipality had completely ignored in favour of AI-generated alternatives. Professor Nordahl noted the peculiar situation: “It's a bit strange that they don't use what I've done, but use something completely different.” The municipality had essentially bypassed genuine academic research to embrace fictional academic research that happened to support their predetermined conclusions.
The Administrative Scandal
Municipal Director Stig Tore Johnsen eventually admitted that humans have written the knowledge base, but artificial intelligence has been used as an aid, calling the situation “embarrassing” and acknowledging “we deeply regret” the errors. The consultation process was suspended for six months whilst the municipality attempted to rebuild their policy foundation using sources that actually exist. Jonas Stein, an associate professor at UiT The Arctic University of Norway, called it “perhaps the first major AI scandal in the Norwegian public sector,” noting this was “classic Chat GPT and something that happens all the time in student work.” The revelation that a major municipal policy decision was based on AI hallucinations prompted calls for comprehensive reviews of all municipal reports and the implementation of AI literacy courses for government employees.
Why They're Nominated
This nomination represents the perfect storm of artificial intelligence meeting administrative overconfidence in the most consequential possible context: democratic decision-making. Tromsø Municipality managed to base major policy decisions affecting thousands of families on research that existed only in the fevered imagination of large language models. The municipality's touching faith that AI could generate credible academic sources without verification demonstrates either breathtaking technological naivety or a profound misunderstanding of how evidence-based policy should work. When your municipal report contains more fictional citations than a fantasy novel, and you're using these fabrications to justify closing schools, perhaps it's time to reconsider whether artificial intelligence has truly mastered the art of academic research. The fact that the municipality ignored genuine research whilst embracing fictional research that supported their preferred outcome suggests that AI was being used not as a research tool but as a confirmation bias generator—exactly the kind of spectacular misuse of technology that exemplifies the AI Darwin Awards principle of artificial intelligence colliding with natural stupidity.
Sources: NRK: Municipality caught using AI: – This is embarrassing | David Gerard: How can Tromsø, Norway shut down some schools? Let's ask the AI! | Digi.no: The scandal in Tromsø: The municipality used sources that AI had fabricated | Tromsø Municipality - New kindergarten and school structure report
Help Us Find the Next AI Darwin Award Winner
Witnessed someone treat AI safety protocols like mere suggestions? Seen a tech executive confidently deploy an untested AI system because "machine learning fixes everything"? Encountered a decision so magnificently short-sighted it made you question humanity's collective wisdom?
We want to hear about it! The AI Darwin Awards depend on nominations from people like you who recognise spectacular artificial intelligence misadventures when they see them.
Help us celebrate the pioneers who boldly went where no responsible person should go. Remember: today's catastrophically bad AI decision is tomorrow's AI Darwin Award winner!
Bonus points if your nominee doubled down when confronted with evidence of their mistake, preferably by deploying even more AI to "fix" the original problem.
