AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI regularly publish reports on how people are using products like Claude and ChatGPT, but they only release the data they want us to see, AI researchers say. Reuel is co-lead of a new research project, called the AI Observatory, that aims to fill in the gap. It’s a public platform that aggregated and analyzed real AI conversations with popular models like Claude and Gemini that were collected with users’ consent through seven existing datasets.
The Observatory's intent is to provide independent sources of information for researchers and policymakers to assess how people are using generative AI. Stakeholders are currently making highly consequential decisions about AI’s benefits and risks based on very limited data, says Reuel. The AI Observatory found that AI use differs significantly across models, and has changed over time.
Its research shows many more sensitive behaviors than are captured in reports from major AI companies, which they say focus more on work than on personal use. Anthropic Economic Index is one of the best known and most widely cited sources of AI usage data but it has blind spots. As its name suggests, it focuses on work- and productivity-related uses of Claude AI—filtering out conversations that are unrelated to these uses.
When the AI Observatory team applied Anthropic’s methods to their dataset, they found that nearly half of the conversations—or 48%— would have been filtered out. Those non-work-related conversations that were filtered out were more likely to include health and relationships (44.2% versus 31.2% in Anthropic’s analysis), adult or illicit topics (7.9% versus 2.1%), harassment and hate (27.5% versus 5.66%), and sexual content (16.7% versus 2.4%). (OpenAI’s 2025 report on ChatGPT use, similarly, found that only 30% of consumer use was related to work.) Anthropic has released separate blog posts on how people use Claude for support or companionship, and even to generate CSAM, “but having [the AI Observatory’s] bird eye view analysis rather than sectioned off into a separate report helps” researchers understand the different uses more consistently, says David Widder, an assistant professor at UT-Austin’s School of Information, who researches how people interact with AI systems and is not involved with the AI Observatory. The datasets the AI Observatory looked at include conversations that took place between 2023 and 2025, and it found differences both in how people were using AI and how various AI platforms responded.
Conversations within WildChat, one of the largest and most detailed datasets included in the AI Observatory’s study, got longer and more elaborate over time, indicated by increases in prompt tokens, response tokens, and conversation turns. There was also significantly more small talk over time. That suggests that AI companionship was increasing; meanwhile the AI assistants’ self-disclosure (i.e. that it was a chatbot) decreased.
Additionally, exchanges that the researchers labeled as sensitive use—meaning ones with potentially harmful or restricted content, including sexual harassment and hate speech—dropped. That might suggest that platforms were generally deploying more effective safeguards. The AI Observatory also found that AI use looked significantly different depending on the model.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
