Anthropic: researchers lean on Claude for data and writing

Anthropic studied 207,000 Claude and Claude Code research sessions (Aug-Sep 2026) plus a survey of 528 scientists. Relative to researcher counts, use is highest in formal sciences such as computer science, maths and statistics, and lower in health and lab-based fields. Data analysis is about one-third of Claude sessions and nearly half of Claude Code sessions; writing is also heavy. Ideation and data gathering get less use even though surveyed scientists rank those as most important for discovery. A simple model says wide adoption of current capabilities could roughly double output in some fields. HN (86 points, 37 comments): No consensus. One camp says Claude is a strong research assistant for plotting, lit search and smoke-test experiments, but not for conclusions. Another says people set too low a ceiling after early failures. A third questions consent for mining consumer research sessions. Sorted take: treat Claude as strongest where Anthropic's own data shows it, analysis and writing, and keep ideation and lab steps human-led for now.