On July 10, 2026, a 67-year-old farmer named Wu sprayed his 10-hectare sesame field with a pesticide mixture recommended by an AI chatbot in Chuzhou, Anhui province. By the next day, the weeds and the entire sesame crop had withered, leaving Wu with a total loss. First reported by Litchi News and later picked up by international media, the story has sparked debate about the dangers of unverified AI advice in agriculture.
Wu had been using artificial intelligence tools for over a year, gradually building trust after receiving what he considered helpful tips on fertilization and pest control. On the day of the incident, he asked the chatbot how to control weeds and pests in his sesame field, and requested that it adapt its advice for drone application. The AI provided a detailed plan listing two herbicides and two insecticides, including fomesafen, a chemical commonly used against broadleaf weeds in soybean fields.
Without consulting an agricultural expert or cross-checking the recommendation, Wu applied the mixture across all 150 mu (about 10 hectares) of his sesame crop. The following morning, he found that both the weeds and sesame plants had been destroyed. When he returned to the chatbot for an explanation, it identified fomesafen as the likely cause.
Herbicide Misuse
Local agricultural suppliers and technicians confirmed that fomesafen is intended for use in soybean fields and can be highly toxic to sesame. Official Chinese pesticide guidelines also warn against using fomesafen on sensitive crops and advise farmers to prevent drift into neighboring fields. In Wu's case, the AI's recommendation gave no specific warning about the risks to sesame, though a general disclaimer about potential errors appeared in the chatbot interface.
Wu admitted he had never paid attention to the small warning at the top of the chat window because he had grown confident in the AI's previous answers. The chatbot's support team told Litchi News that its responses draw on publicly available online information and promised to review the sources behind the faulty advice. As of publication, the company had not offered Wu a solution.
Legal and Practical Implications
A legal expert interviewed by Litchi News said responsibility for the loss would depend on the platform's warnings and the seller's product information, as well as whether the farmer read the instructions. Any claim would likely require a technical assessment to establish the exact cause of the damage.
The case shows why AI-generated advice needs verification, especially when real-world consequences are at stake. The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) has also warned users to scrutinize AI responses and consult qualified professionals before making decisions with impressive consequences for health, finances or legal matters.
Artificial intelligence can help organize information and explore options, but risks rise when users treat its output as direct technical instruction. Similar problems have surfaced in other sectors, including pension management, where AI-generated guidance can have lasting financial effects. A recent case involving a French farmer whose decision to give away surplus potatoes led to unexpected outcomes (see the story of a potato surplus in France) also shows how agricultural choices can produce far-reaching, unintended results.
Wu has lost his sesame crop, a costly result of relying on AI advice without checking it, especially when a livelihood is at stake.
