Today we're sharing some initial data on how Americans use Claude for politics, based on aggregated conversation data analyzed with differentially private methods. A couple interesting takeaways: *Almost no one asks AI how they should vote* About ~5.75% of conversations in the US touch on some kind of political or social issue in a recent one-week period, and less than 0.01% of conversations involve asking how to vote. *Political conversations have many goals* These conversations have wide-ranging goals, everything from research and writing assistance to learning, fact-checking, and arguing. We are continuing to make progress on improving how Claude talks about these topics---steadily increasing our performance on our even-handedness evals and partnering with a range of outside organizations to develop new measures of political bias---and I hope that sharing information about the shape of these conversations will help people outside the company evaluate AI's political bias, accuracy, and other criteria in ecologically valid ways. I'd love to discuss this with people who are interested, as it was a huge priority for me before joining. This was a big joint effort as part of our work preparing for the midterm elections @AnthropicAI. Full post is here: anthropic.com/news/2026-us-m…