A 67-year-old farmer in Chuzhou, Anhui Province, China, apparently lost about 25 acres of sesame crops after following pest control advice from an AI chatbot. The mixture he applied seemed to have killed both the weeds and his sesame seedlings within a day.
The farmer had reportedly been using the AI chatbot for about a year to plan farming schedules and get fertilizer recommendations, according to Taiwanese outlet CTWant, cited by Brobible. In July, he turned to the chatbot for advice on managing pests in his sesame crop.
Rather than testing the chatbot’s suggested mixture on a small area first or checking with a human expert, the farmer applied it directly across his fields, CTWant reported. The next day, his crops were dead.
Chatbot later said the formula may have caused the crop loss
After the crops died, the farmer reportedly asked the chatbot what had gone wrong. The chatbot apparently pointed to the formula he had used as the likely cause.
“If you spray it, the next day the seedlings won’t survive. Both the grass and the seedlings will die, and the seedlings will die even faster,” the farmer told CTWant that the AI chatbot told him this.
The incident destroyed about 150 mu — roughly 25 acres, or about 1,000,000 square feet — of farmland, and the farmer’s losses were estimated at about $22,200, CTWant reported.
The farmer had reportedly ignored a disclaimer warning that the chatbot’s information may not always be accurate. Other AI chatbot mix-ups have played out in far less costly settings, including a fast-food hiring mishap involving an AI bot.
The report did not name the AI chatbot involved or specify what chemicals were included in the mixture the farmer applied. This incident adds to a growing list of cases where people have faced real-world consequences after following AI-generated advice without independent verification. In more serious cases, AI chatbot conversations have come under scrutiny in connection with a shooter’s exchange with a chatbot before an attack.
As more people turn to AI chatbots for guidance on practical, high-stakes tasks, incidents like this one raise questions about how such tools should be used alongside professional or expert advice.
