Key findings
- 1
Veselovsky, Horta Ribeiro and West: LLM use by Amazon Mechanical Turk workers on a summarization task: 33-46% of crowd workers (range estimate) (13 Jun 2023).
- 2
Vendors report far lower rates on their own platforms: Prolific says internal audits put AI-assisted responding below 1% (below 1% (upper bound, vendor internal audit)).
- 3
Scale AI late-2023 spreadsheet lists 490 removed contractors (VPN use, duplicate accounts) (490 removed (48 VPN, 70 same name, 11 two accounts, 21 low quality), 1 Dec 2025).
- 4
The latest security incident recorded: Report: Meta ended its work with Mercor after the breach (10 Jul 2026).
- 5
micro1 case study, 250 annotators hired from 25,000+ applications (stated, 11 Oct 2026).
- 6
Identity or location fraud is the most documented risk, with 12 of the 41 records.
Figure 1
Screening steps stated in open roles today (live)
How often do open roles say applicants will be tested, interviewed or verified?
| Platform | Roles read | Assessment or test | AI-led interview | Interview | Background check | Identity check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All described roles | 3,260 | 14.7% | 4.5% | 4.9% | 0.2% | 0.7% |
| RemoExperts | 36 | 5.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| SuperAnnotate (SME) | 377 | 11.1% | 26.8% | 0.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sigma AI | 90 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Invisible | 532 | 3.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| micro1 | 248 | 23.8% | 9.3% | 2.4% | 0.0% | 0.8% |
| Mercor | 229 | 12.7% | 2.2% | 3.9% | 0.4% | 0.0% |
| Terac | 22 | 4.5% | 9.1% | 13.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AfterQuery | 216 | 40.7% | 0.0% | 0.9% | 2.3% | 5.1% |
| Babel Audio | 43 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Turing | 190 | 33.7% | 2.6% | 14.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Welo Data | 235 | 11.1% | 0.0% | 13.2% | 0.0% | 0.9% |
| Perle Labs | 67 | 16.4% | 0.0% | 67.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claru | 42 | 4.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Vetto | 20 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Anyone AI | 128 | 57.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Handshake AI | 170 | 5.3% | 0.0% | 2.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| OpenTrain AI | 42 | 9.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Pila8 | 3 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Braintrust | 78 | 19.2% | 15.4% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Pasiflora AI | 7 | 14.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| OneForma | 24 | 8.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sovrano AI | 20 | 80.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Appen | 55 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 16.4% |
| Mindrift | 297 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| xAI (SpaceXAI) | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| TransPerfect DataForce | 66 | 7.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Remotasks | 3 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Outlier (Scale AI) | 5 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Sample. 3,260 open roles whose job board publishes a full description, read today with the patterns of the requirements report. Recomputed daily.
A mention is not a guarantee: a role can screen without saying so. Only platforms that publish descriptions are read.
Source. AITraining.jobs Research, Human Data Quality, Fraud and Security, live data.
Figure 2
Workers using AI models to do the work
How often do workers use an AI model to do human-data tasks?
Sample. 11 records on LLM use by workers, to 11 Oct 2026.
Rates come from different tasks, platforms and methods (detection, self-report, vendor audits) and are not comparable with one another.
Source. AITraining.jobs Research, Human Data Quality, Fraud and Security, live data.
Figure 3
Identity, account and location fraud
How do fake accounts, account sales and location spoofing reach human-data work?
Sample. 12 records on identity or location fraud, to 11 Oct 2026.
Source. AITraining.jobs Research, Human Data Quality, Fraud and Security, live data.
Figure 4
Documented quality failures
Where has human data for AI gone wrong, by the documents reported?
Sample. 5 records on quality failure, to 11 Oct 2026.
Source. AITraining.jobs Research, Human Data Quality, Fraud and Security, live data.
Figure 5
Security incidents at human-data vendors
Which breaches and exposures have hit human-data vendors and their clients?
Sample. 9 records on security incident, to 11 Oct 2026.
Source. AITraining.jobs Research, Human Data Quality, Fraud and Security, live data.
Figure 6
How hard vendors screen
How many applicants do vendors accept, and how much work do they reject?
| Record | Date | Figure or finding |
|---|---|---|
| micro1 case study: 250 annotators hired from 25,000+ applicationsmicro1 | 11 Oct 2026 | ~85% interview-to-hire; 250 hired of 25,000+ applications |
| Prolific: 55% of invited applicants pass onboardingProlific | 4 Aug 2026 | 55% of invited applicants pass onboarding |
| Prolific: overall study rejection rate of 0.5% in 2025Prolific | 4 Aug 2026 | 0.5% of submissions rejected (all studies, 2025) |
| Prolific: only 13% of waitlist applicants are invited to onboardingProlific | 28 Nov 2025 | 13% of waitlist applicants invited |
Sample. 4 records on screening and acceptance, to 11 Oct 2026.
Source. AITraining.jobs Research, Human Data Quality, Fraud and Security, live data.
Figure 7
Records by topic
Which risks are documented most?
| Topic | Records |
|---|---|
| Identity or location fraud | 12 |
| LLM use by workers | 11 |
| Security incident | 9 |
| Quality failure | 5 |
| Screening and acceptance | 4 |
Sample. 41 records, to 11 Oct 2026.
Source. AITraining.jobs Research, Human Data Quality, Fraud and Security, live data.
For labs, data vendors and researchers
Buy the data behind this report
The figures above are a summary. Behind them are records we collect ourselves, every day:
9,572 roles tracked, each with its history
Every role on 29 job boards, read daily since 13 Jul 2026: its pay and place, and the first and last day it was open.
6,200 apply clicks in 28 days
Which roles people actually apply to, by field, pay and kind of work. It happens on this site, so nobody else can count it.
39 lab and vendor hiring boards
The job boards of 25 AI labs and 14 human-data vendors, read every day: who is hiring for human data, and who is hiring to buy it.
What you can buy
The records
The rows behind any figure, with their history, not only the totals.
A regular feed
The same figures every week or month, as files.
A custom cut or benchmark
Your countries, languages or fields, or your own platform against the market.
Method and definitions
Job descriptions read every day for the live figure; studies, vendor statements and reporting, each linked. The live figures are computed every day from this site's own data, the same way for every reader; every sourced row links the publication it is taken from, with the figure as that publication states it. Each figure states its sample beneath it.
- Screening step (live)
- A description that names an assessment, an AI-led or other interview, a background check or identity verification, by the patterns of the requirements report.
- Study, incident, vendor statement
- A measured rate from research, a documented event in reporting or a court filing, or a vendor's own figure.
What this data cannot tell you
- Each report sets its sourced records beside a live figure computed from this site's own data every day; the sourced records are added as they are published and reviewed.
- Compiled from public sources: an event that was never announced or reported is missing, and private companies' figures are what they or the press stated, not audited.
- Rates come from different tasks, platforms and methods and are not comparable with one another.
How the job feeds are read and roles are classified: site methodology. How fresh, complete and consistent the data is, checked every day: data quality and coverage.
Editions
The live report is the dataset as last reviewed, beside figures recomputed every day from this site's own data; new events are added as they are published. Each complete month is also published as an edition, frozen two days after the month ends, so a figure you cite from an edition never moves.
- Live dataSources as last reviewed, live figures daily
Cite and reuse
Free to quote, chart and republish under CC BY 4.0 with a link to this page. Live figures change daily: cite a monthly edition for numbers that will read the same later, or keep the access date.
Citation
AITraining.jobs (2026). Human Data Quality, Fraud and Security (live data, 13 Jun 2023 to 11 Oct 2026). https://www.aitraining.team/research/human-data-quality-and-fraud (accessed 18 Oct 2026)
BibTeX
@misc{aitrainingjobs_human_data_quality_and_fraud_live,
author = {{AITraining.jobs}},
title = {Human Data Quality, Fraud and Security (live data, 13 Jun 2023 to 11 Oct 2026)},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://www.aitraining.team/research/human-data-quality-and-fraud}},
note = {Accessed 18 Oct 2026},
}More research
- Which AI Labs Are Hiring for Human DataWhich AI labs are hiring for the teams that buy, run and evaluate human data, and for what roles?Read the report
- Where Human-Data Vendors Are BuildingHow fast are the human-data vendors hiring their own staff, and for which functions?Read the report
- Who Is Buying AI Training DataWhich AI labs and data vendors have people whose job is to source, license or acquire training data right now?Read the report
- What AI Labs Pay for Human DataWhat do AI labs spend on human data, what do vendors bill, what do the experts receive, and what do RL environments and tasks cost?Read the report
- What AI Labs Are BuyingWhich kinds of training data are in rising demand, and which are cooling?Read the report
- AI Training Data Licensing DealsWho has licensed content and data to which AI companies, on what terms and for how much?Read the report
- Lawsuits and Settlements Over AI Training DataWhich copyright, privacy and data-rights disputes over AI training data have been filed, ruled on or settled, and what did they cost?Read the report
- Company Data Brokerage: Buyers, Prices and TermsWho buys companies' records and the archives of defunct companies to train AI, at what prices and on what terms, and what do brokers earn?Read the report
- The State of AI Training PayWhat does AI training work pay, by kind of work and by platform?Read the report