So I have read the MIT paper and the methodology as well as the conclusions are just something else.

For example, the number comes from perceived successes and failures and not actual measurements. The customer conclusions are also - it doesnt improve or it doesnt remember. Literally buying into the hype of recursive self improvement and completely oblivious to the fact that API dont control model weights and such cant do much self improvement besides writing more CRUD layers. The other complaints are about integrations which are totally valid. But in industries which still run windows XYZ without any API platforms so thats not going away in those cases.

Point being, if the paper itself is not very good discourse just a well marketed punditry, why should we discuss on the 5% number. It makes no sense.