A classic marketing piece by showing thought leadership based on survey data. I'm not saying they're lying, I don't think they are. I am saying they are biased and have a conflict of interest on this one. I've seen it at my previous employer as well (a F500 company).

To remove some of that bias, I'd recommend to get an independent body (probably some university) in and let them do the interpretation and write the article.

I just want people to see the tactic for what it is. I really like Claude Opus 4.6 but this just screams "marketing" to me. I wouldn't say it's wrong, it's good to have these discussions and I'd encourage AI companies to say what they have to say. I would say: more independent sources are needed (and not another AI company).

As someone working in clinical studies,

I can tell you the questions are biased from the start. That study has to be redone entirely.

Withholding the truth is the same as lying. Manipulating survey questions is the same as lying.