[throwaway4aday]

> For clarity, humans only have “one session” so if you’re being fair, you would not compare it’s multi-session capabilities since humans aren’t able to have multiple sessions.

Once again you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. If we're talking about short term or working memory then humans certainly have multiple "sessions" since the information is not usually held on to. It's my understanding that these models also have a limit to the number of tokens that can be present in both the prompt and response. Sounds a lot more like working memory than human like learning. You seem fairly well convinced that these models are identical or superior to what the human brain is doing. If that's true I'd like to see the rationale behind it.

[O__________O]

No, humans, unless you are referring to procreation, do not have multiple sessions, they have a single session, once it ends, they’re dead forever. One ChatGPT session memory is obviously superior to any human that’s ever lived; if you’re not familiar with methods for doing for, ask ChatGPT how to expand information retention beyond the core session token set. Besides, there already solutions that solve long-term memory for ChatGPT across sessions by simply storing and reinitializing prior information into new sessions. Lastly, you not I are the one refusing to provide any rationale, since I already stated I am not aware of any significant insurmountable issue that will either be resolved or for that matter exceeded by AI.