Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
83 78 88 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
Insufficient record: 2 predictions resolved, 5 needed for a score.
-
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
Insufficient record: 0 promises resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 83 (likely 78 to 88, high confidence), from 86 claims: 86 factual claims. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Daniela Amodei's claims
43 claims
“we spoke with 81,000 people about how they use AI.”
Daniela Amodei, Anthropic president 9 May 2026 Daniela Amodei, Co-Founder and President of Anthropic: Building AI the Right Way (transcript) (The Transcript Desk)
Anthropic conducted a qualitative survey speaking with 81,000 people about how they use AI.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
TRUE: on or before 2026-05-09, Anthropic carried out and reported a qualitative study (interviews or open-ended survey, for example with its Anthropic Interviewer tool) with about 81,000 participants (roughly 78,000–84,000) about how they use AI. MOSTLY TRUE: such a study exists and is about AI use, but the participant count is somewhat different (within about 15%), or the study was mainly a survey rather than interviews. MIXED: Anthropic ran a qualitative study about AI use, but the count is far from 81,000 (for example off by a factor of two), or 81,000 is the total for several separate studies. MOSTLY FALSE: the 81,000 figure refers to something else (for example conversations analysed automatically rather than people spoken with), or the study's main topic was not how people use AI. FALSE: no such study by Anthropic existed by that date.
Evidence
- What 81,000 people want from AI Anthropic · 18 March 2026 Own record
“80,508 people, across 159 countries and 70 languages, took the interview.”
- What 81,000 people want from AI Anthropic · 18 March 2026 Own record
“Over one week in December, we invited everyone with a Claude.ai account to sit down with Anthropic Interviewer—a version of Claude prompted to conduct a conversational interview—and tell us about how they view AI.”
- What 81,000 people want from AI Anthropic · 18 March 2026 Own record
“Last December, tens of thousands of Claude users around the world had a conversation with our AI interviewer to share how they use AI, what they dream it could make possible, and what they fear it might do.”
- IST researchers discuss AI interviewers on The Conversation - Penn State College of IST Penn State College of Information Sciences and Technology · 20 May 2026
“The AI tool collected responses from nearly 81,000 people about their visions for AI, across 70 languages and 159 countries.”
Reasoning
Anthropic's published report, dated 2026-03-18, says 80,508 people in 159 countries took an interview run by its Anthropic Interviewer tool in December (E1, E2). That count is within the 78,000–84,000 range in the criteria. The report says participants shared how they use AI, along with their hopes and fears about it (E3). An independent Penn State article separately confirms that the AI interviewer collected responses from nearly 81,000 people across 70 languages and 159 countries (E4).
Cite this claim
Daniela Amodei, “Anthropic conducted a qualitative survey speaking with 81,000 people about how they use AI.” (said 9 May 2026). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_477ebf2bf4cb, method 0.1.0+28da144b. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_477ebf2bf4cb
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Daniela Amodei? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.