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
38 claims
“We have detailed, real-time knowledge of how technology can be misused because we see it in action every day”
Daniela Amodei, Anthropic president, interviewee 9 May 2026 Daniela Amodei, Co-Founder and President of Anthropic: Building AI the Right Way (transcript) (The Transcript Desk)
Anthropic has detailed, real-time knowledge of how technology can be misused because it sees misuse in action every day, with its safeguards and security teams monitoring how people try to poke holes.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
The evidence is the person's or their organisation's own records.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
True if, as of 2026-05-09, evidence shows Anthropic has teams (for example safeguards, trust and safety, or threat intelligence teams) that continuously or daily monitor and detect misuse attempts on its platform, giving it current, detailed knowledge of misuse patterns, as shown for example by published threat-intelligence reports that describe detected misuse. Mostly true if monitoring and reporting exist but are periodic rather than strictly real-time or daily. Mixed if misuse detection exists but is limited in scope or depth compared with the claim. Mostly false if Anthropic's misuse knowledge comes mainly from occasional investigations rather than ongoing monitoring. False if there is no such monitoring function.
Evidence
- Threat Intelligence / Anthropic Anthropic Own record
“We identify concerning activity on Claude via detection tools, our enforcement team, intelligence partners, and from the open source.”
- Threat Intelligence / Anthropic Anthropic Own record
“To improve the safety and security of frontier AI models, we publish regular reports detailing the methods malicious actors use to exploit them.”
- Usage Policy Anthropic · 1 January 2026 Own record
“Anthropic’s Safeguards Team implements detection and monitoring to enforce our Usage Policy.”
- LLMs and biorisk Anthropic · 5 September 2025 Own record
“Across all models, our Safeguards team monitors activity on our platforms for signs of misuse, including dangerous applications of biology. This monitoring provides insight into patterns of misuse and helps us determine if and when to take enforcement action.”
Reasoning
Anthropic's Usage Policy says its Safeguards Team runs detection and monitoring to enforce the policy (E3). Its Threat Intelligence page describes identifying concerning activity on Claude through detection tools, an enforcement team and intelligence partners, and says Anthropic publishes regular reports on how malicious actors exploit its models (E1, E2). A research post adds that the Safeguards team monitors activity on its platforms and that this gives insight into patterns of misuse (E4). This shows ongoing monitoring and regular reporting. However, none of these sources says the monitoring is daily or real-time, and all of them come from Anthropic itself, so the verdict is mostly true.
Cite this claim
Daniela Amodei, “Anthropic has detailed, real-time knowledge of how technology can be misused because it sees misuse in action every day, with its safeguards and security teams monitoring how people try to poke holes.” (said 9 May 2026). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_86c77e54b96b, method 0.1.0+28da144b. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_86c77e54b96b
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.