Anthropic, the organization behind the AI model Claude, has released new research examining how professionals utilize AI in their work environments, based on 1,250 interviews spanning various fields, including general workforce, creative industries, and scientific research. The findings indicate a mix of optimism and productivity improvements, alongside persistent concerns regarding job identity, peer judgment, and the reliability of current AI systems for critical tasks.
Most participants reported that AI enhances their efficiency, with 86% stating it saves them time and 65% expressing satisfaction with its role in their work. However, the qualitative interviews reveal a notable stigma associated with AI usage in professional settings. Many respondents conveyed hesitance to disclose their AI usage due to fear of negative judgment from colleagues. One fact-checker remarked, “A colleague recently said they hate AI, and I just said nothing.”
Anthropic is framing this initiative as a comprehensive ongoing study. The interviews were conducted using Anthropic Interviewer, a tool powered by Claude that automates qualitative interviews at scale. This method allows the organization to monitor the evolving impact of AI on work life, informing future product developments and policy suggestions.
Innovative Interview Approach
The Anthropic Interviewer, central to this research, diverges from traditional studies that rely on a limited number of human interviewers. It employs a structured workflow that enables Claude to conduct scalable, adaptive interviews with large participant pools. For this study, participants engaged in a 10–15 minute dialogue about AI’s role in their work, with plans for the tool to be made available to a broader audience in a public pilot.
Previously, internal tools could only analyze data collected during interactions, such as prompts and responses. In contrast, the Anthropic Interviewer aims to explore post-interaction outcomes, including how AI-generated outputs are utilized and participants’ visions for future AI development.
The research sample comprised 1,250 professionals from crowdworker platforms, all of whom had other primary occupations. Participants were divided into three categories: 1,000 individuals from diverse job sectors, 125 creatives primarily in writing and visual arts, and another 125 scientists from various disciplines. Each group had distinct research objectives tailored to their specific contexts.
In the general workforce, the focus was to understand the integration of AI tools into professional workflows. For creatives, the aim was to explore AI’s impact on their creative processes and envision future interactions with AI. Scientists were surveyed to assess AI integration in research workflows, trust levels, and barriers to adoption.
Upon completion of the interviews, the Anthropic Interviewer, paired with another AI analysis tool, clustered themes and estimated the frequency of specific topics and emotions. Human researchers then interpreted these patterns to form the study’s conclusions.
In the general workforce, participants viewed AI as a valuable resource rather than a potential threat. Notably, 86% claimed that AI saves them time, while 65% expressed satisfaction with its contributions. However, 69% acknowledged social stigmas surrounding AI, with many professionals opting to conceal their usage. Perspectives on job security varied, with 41% feeling secure in their roles, while 55% expressed anxiety about AI’s future implications.
When comparing self-reported AI habits to actual usage data, a disparity emerged. While 65% of interviewees claimed AI primarily augments their work, earlier analyses indicated a nearly equal split between augmentation and automation. This discrepancy suggests that perceptions of AI’s role may differ from its practical applications, highlighting the complex relationship between users and technology.
Creative professionals reported some of the most significant productivity gains, with 97% stating AI saves them time and 68% believing it enhances their work quality. However, economic concerns loom large, as many creatives feel the pressure of AI’s impact on their job markets. A voice actor noted the decline of certain sectors due to AI, while other respondents expressed a desire to maintain control over their creative processes amid rising automation.
Scientists, on the other hand, displayed skepticism regarding AI’s reliability, with 79% expressing concerns over trust and accuracy. While they regularly employ AI for tasks like literature reviews, many are wary of using it for hypothesis generation or experimental design. The trust issues persist despite a strong demand for improved AI capabilities in research, with 91% of scientists requesting greater assistance for data integration and idea generation.
Looking ahead, Anthropic plans to expand the use of Anthropic Interviewer in collaboration with cultural institutions and educational organizations to further explore AI’s influence on creativity and research. However, the study’s limitations exist; the participant pool may not fully represent the broader workforce, and the interviews were conducted in a text-only format, which restricts emotional analysis.
The report emphasizes that many professionals are actively redefining their relationship with AI, seeking more collaborative and beneficial roles for this technology in their work. As one medical scientist articulated, the goal is not to move away from AI but to cultivate a partnership that enhances research capabilities.
See also
Nova Era Labs Launches 450+ Cloud-Based AI Labs to Bridge Skills Gap in Education
Schools Embrace AI Challenges, Shift Teaching Methods to Prevent Student Reliance on Technology
Employers Prioritizing AI Literacy See 76% Adoption Rate, Boosting Talent Retention
EdTech Market Projects $92 Billion by 2033 as AI Adoption Surges to 50% in Schools
OpenAI’s Chris Lehane Advocates for Federal Safety Standards for Frontier AI Models
