2025 AI Darwin Award Results
A comprehensive analysis of this year's most spectacular AI failures
The Verdict is In
After rigorous scientific analysis (and considerable amusement), the results are conclusive. From 17 eligible nominees, one stood triumphant in the grand tradition of spectacularly misplaced confidence in artificial intelligence.
Winner: Tesla Full Self-Driving with a commanding score of 92.5 points—proving once again that the combination of cutting-edge technology and stone-age decision-making remains humanity's most reliable source of entertainment.
The scoring methodology follows our rigorous scientific framework: Folly (how preventable), Arrogance (how overconfident), Impact (how extensive the fallout), and Lethality (how dangerous). Each dimension is weighted according to its contribution to the overall spectacle of technological hubris meeting natural selection.
The Heat Map of Shame
Behold, the comprehensive thermal imaging of AI incompetence. Each cell represents the scoring intensity across our four critical dimensions. The deeper the color, the more spectacular the failure. Consider this a weather map for technological disasters.
The preventability quotient. Measures how obvious the disaster was to anyone who wasn't blinded by their own investor pitch deck.
The hubris index. Quantifies the gap between confidence in the AI and understanding of what the AI actually does.
The blast radius. How many people were affected by the failure, how widespread the consequences, and how many news cycles did it dominate?
The danger coefficient. Assesses the potential for actual harm, because some mistakes are merely humiliating while others are genuinely catastrophic.
| Nominee | Folly (20%) |
Arrogance (25%) |
Impact (15%) |
Lethality (40%) |
Final Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tesla Full Self-Driving | 80 | 90 | 70 | 85 | 92.5 |
| Grok MechaHitler | 85 | 95 | 80 | 65 | 91.25 |
| ChatGPT Confidant | 60 | 70 | 75 | 80 | 82.25 |
| Tromsø Municipality | 80 | 75 | 65 | 35 | 66 |
| Replit Agent | 65 | 70 | 55 | 25 | 65.75 |
| Albania's AI Minister Diella | 70 | 85 | 60 | 18 | 62.75 |
| Omnilert AI Gun Detection | 65 | 75 | 55 | 45 | 60.5 |
| Deloitte Citation Chaos | 75 | 70 | 60 | 20 | 60.25 |
| WA Lawyer | 60 | 65 | 45 | 10 | 53 |
| Spotify AI Spam Tracks | 50 | 60 | 65 | 15 | 51.25 |
| GPT-5 Jailbreak | 55 | 65 | 50 | 30 | 49.25 |
| McDonald's AI Chatbot | 75 | 45 | 60 | 15 | 47.25 |
| MyPillow Lawyers | 70 | 60 | 50 | 10 | 44.5 |
| Summer Reading List | 60 | 55 | 45 | 1 | 40.75 |
| Taco Bell AI Drive-Thru | 45 | 55 | 40 | 5 | 35.75 |
| Xbox Producer | 45 | 50 | 35 | 5 | 34.5 |
| Airbnb Host | 45 | 50 | 30 | 5 | 34.25 |
Failure Fingerprints
Each nominee possesses a unique "failure signature"—a distinctive pattern of incompetence across our four dimensions. These radar charts reveal the beautiful diversity of ways artificial intelligence can be spectacularly misdeployed. Some excel in pure danger, others in breathtaking overconfidence, and the truly gifted manage to combine all four dimensions into a symphony of technological hubris.
Methodology Notes
Our scoring system employs the same rigorous methodology used by leading institutions for measuring spectacular failure: careful observation, liberal amounts of sarcasm, and the fundamental principle that confidence in AI capabilities should ideally be matched by understanding of AI limitations.
Each nominee was evaluated by our panel of experts (who shall remain anonymous for their own protection) using established criteria for technological hubris, with bonus points awarded for particularly creative applications of artificial intelligence to solve problems that didn't exist, or exist but probably shouldn't be solved by chatbots.