Anthropic introduces Anthropic Interviewer, a tool that uses Claude to conduct detailed qualitative interviews at unprecedented scale, along with the findings of its first study: 1,250 professionals surveyed on their relationship with AI at work — general workforce (1,000), scientists (125), and creatives (125), recruited via crowdworking platforms. The approach is hybrid: automated interviews, AI-assisted thematic analysis, and human validation, with data published (under consent) for research purposes. The tool will be offered to Claude.ai users for the next research phase.
The findings depict a broadly optimistic landscape crossed by sector-specific concerns. The general workforce expresses predominantly positive sentiment: a willingness to delegate routine tasks to AI while preserving those that define professional identity. Many view AI as an augmentation tool rather than a replacement ("computers didn't eliminate mathematicians, they let them do more") and are actively seeking non-automatable skills. A stigma nonetheless persists: using AI for one's communications is perceived by colleagues as "laziness."
Creative professionals experience a more complex dynamic: they adopt AI despite peer judgment and report real efficiency gains and reduced stress, but express anxiety about economic displacement and identity-related questioning. Several describe an "illusion of collaboration": AI assists but does not direct the creative decision. An AI-generated novel may have a good plot, "but it won't have the deep nuances" that a human brings.
Scientists display a desire for partnership — an AI capable of generating hypotheses or normalizing data would be "very exciting" — but their use remains confined to peripheral tasks (debugging, code). The obstacles: hallucinations ("I can't rely on it not to lie"), the need for constant verification, and institutional data-confidentiality barriers.
Three concerns run across all groups: control and autonomy in decision-making, fear of professional displacement, and preservation of professional identity. The study draws implications for professionals (skills adaptation), employers (gradual integration and training), AI developers (reliability, transparency), and policymakers (safety nets, education), advocating for an equitable transition toward AI-augmented work.