This suggests that developers are the primary user base affecting valuation, not the average user, doesn't it? I don't know anyone among mortals who uses Claude. The spike does correlate with the exodus from OpenAI earlier in the year though.
And to me it seems like you're justifying a lack of oversight and dangers of this technology for what purpose exactly? Why are you defending a corporation?
Are you talking about automobile technology in general? Human operated vehicles kill a lot of people each year. People get tiny slaps on the wrist for breaking the law on the roads, crashing into other cars, crashing into pedestrians. It's actually really hard to lose your driver's license. We can probably give Waymo a little leeway for driving into a puddle that's deeper than it estimated
> the AI pessimism is hard to understand in this context
This is a burden of proof inversion: historically new technology has not resulted in optimistic outcomes. Quality of life improvements were side effects of capital accruing. AI optimism is the naïve option that requires justification.
There seem to be multiple mechanisms compensating for imperfect, lossy memory. "Dreaming" is another band-aid on inability to reliably store memory without loss of precision. How lossy is this pruning process?
It's one thing to give Claude a narrow task with clear parameters, and another to watch errors or incorrect assumptions snowball as you have a more complex conversation or open-ended task.
>What a great way to summarize LLM behaviour in 2026
Well they have been trained on words spoken by humans and that has been a human behaviour since time immemorial. E.g.: "I do not agree with you that you were wrong. I do apologize for my strong disagreement but we actually do need your continued guidance desperately."
reply