The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clio: Privacy-Preserving Insights into Real-World AI Use
Abstract
How are AI assistants being used in the real world? While model providers in theory have a window into this impact via their users' data, both privacy concerns and practical challenges have made analyzing this data difficult. To address these issues, we present Clio (Claude insights and observations), a privacy-preserving platform that uses AI assistants themselves to analyze and surface aggregated usage patterns across millions of conversations, without the need for human reviewers to read raw conversations. We validate this can be done with a high degree of accuracy and privacy by conducting extensive evaluations. We demonstrate Clio's usefulness in two broad ways. First, we share insights about how models are being used in the real world from one million Claude.ai Free and Pro conversations, ranging from providing advice on hairstyles to providing guidance on Git operations and concepts. We also identify the most common high-level use cases on Claude.ai (coding, writing, and research tasks) as well as patterns that differ across languages (e.g., conversations in Japanese discuss elder care and aging populations at higher-than-typical rates). Second, we use Clio to make our systems safer by identifying coordinated attempts to abuse our systems, monitoring for unknown unknowns during critical periods like launches of new capabilities or major world events, and improving our existing monitoring systems. We also discuss the limitations of our approach, as well as risks and ethical concerns. By enabling analysis of real-world AI usage, Clio provides a scalable platform for empirically grounded AI safety and governance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Other studies have shown the potential of LLMs to make the entire review pipeline more efficient across various stages [32,33,34,35] such as writing manuscripts [36], initial quality control [37,38,27], and even providing AI-generated instructions for how to write reviews [39].”
From A large-scale randomized study of large language model feedback in peer review (2026) · cites this paper as [38]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.03425 · Cited by 1,907 · cited 1×
“As AI systems become more prevalent, numerous frameworks for AI ethics and governance have been proposed [Jobin et al., 2019, Hagendorff, 2020, Weidinger et al., 2021, 2022, Chan et al., 2023, Gabriel et al., 2024].”
Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models
Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.04359 · Cited by 477
Goal-Driven Explainable Clustering via Language Descriptions
Wang, Z., Shang, J., & Zhong, R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.13749 · Cited by 24
Cited by
GDPval: Evaluating AI Model Performance on Real-World Economically Valuable Tasks
Patwardhan, T., Dias, R., Proehl, E., Kim, G., Wang, M., Watkins, O., Fishman, S. P., Aljubeh, M., Thacker, P., Fauconnet, L., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04374 · Cited by 189
Russo, G., Nozza, D., Röttger, P., & Hovy, D. (2026) · Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.eacl-long.305 · Cited by 19
A large-scale randomized study of large language model feedback in peer review
Thakkar, N., Yuksekgonul, M., Silberg, J., Garg, A., Peng, N., Sha, F., Yu, R., Vondrick, C., & Zou, J. (2026) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-026-01188-x · Cited by 119
How AI Impacts Skill Formation
Shen, J. H., & Tamkin, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20245 · Cited by 120
“Studies examining prompt-based utilization have facilitated a detailed examination of AI’s real-world applications [Tamkin et al., 2024, Shen and Guestrin, 2025].”
Self-citationCan LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025
Thakkar, N., Yuksekgonul, M., Silberg, J., Garg, A., Peng, N., Sha, F., Yu, R., Vondrick, C., & Zou, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.09737 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Tamkin, A., McCain, M., Handa, K., Durmus, E., Lovitt, L., Rathi, A., Huang, S., Mountfield, A., Hong, J., Ritchie, S., Stern, M., Clarke, B., Goldberg, L., Sumers, T. R., Mueller, J., McEachen, W., Mitchell, W., Carter, S., Clark, J., Kaplan, J., & Ganguli, D.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- arXiv
- 2412.13678
- References
- 3
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clio: Privacy-Preserving Insights into Real-World AI Use. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2412.13678
- The paper
- Tamkin, A., McCain, M., Handa, K., Durmus, E., Lovitt, L., Rathi, A., Huang, S., Mountfield, A., Hong, J., Ritchie, S., Stern, M., Clarke, B., Goldberg, L., Sumers, T. R., Mueller, J., McEachen, W., Mitchell, W., Carter, S., Clark, J., . . . Ganguli, D. (2024). Clio: Privacy-Preserving Insights into Real-World AI Use. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2412.13678
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.