[arppacket]

While it's noisy and complicated for humans to read through, this session info is primarily for future AI to read and use as additional input for their tasks.

We could have LLMs ingest all these historical sessions, and use them as context for the current session. Basically treat the current session as an extension of a much, much longer previous session.

Plus, future models might be able to "understand" the limitations of current models, and use the historical session info to identity where the generated code could have deviated from user intention. That might be useful for generating code, or just more efficient analysis by focusing on possible "hotspots", etc.

Basically, it's high time we start capturing any and all human input for future models, especially open source model development, because I'm sure the companies already have a bunch of this kind of data.

[woctordho]

That's exactly one of the reasons I've been archiving the sessions using DataClaw. The sessions can contain more useful information than the comments for humans.

[0] https://github.com/peteromallet/dataclaw

[staticassertion]

TBH I don't think it's worth the context space to do this. I'm skeptical that this would have any meaningful benefits vs just investing in targeted docs, skills, etc.

I already keep a "benchmarks.md" file to track commits and benchmark results + what did/ did not work. I think that's far more concise and helpful than the massive context that was used to get there. And it's useful for a human to read, which I think is good. I prefer things remain maximally beneficial to both humans and AI - disconnects seem to be problematic.

[arppacket]

Might not be worth it now, but might be in future. Not just for future LLMs, but future AI architectures.

I don't think the current transformers architecture is the final stop in the architectural breakthroughs we need for "AGI" that mimics human thought process. We've gone through RNN, LSTM, Mamba, Transformers, with an exponentially increasing amounts of data over the years. If we want to use similar "copy human sequences" approaches all the way to AGI, we need to continuously record human thoughts, so to speak (and yes, that makes me really queasy).

So, persisting the session, that's already available in a convenient form for AI, is also about capturing the human reasoning process during the session, and the sometimes inherent heuristics therein. I agree that it's not really useful for humans to read.

[staticassertion]

I just don't really see the point in hedging like that tbh. I think you could justify almost anything on "it could be useful", but why pay the cost now? Eh.

[aiisjustanif]

Optimizing and over-engineering to soon has gone out the window

[JeremyNT]

But AI can just read the diff. The natural language isn't important.

[serial_dev]

Or just "write a good commit message based on our session, pls", then both humans and llms can use it.

[ZeroGravitas]

Similarly, git logs of existing human code seem to be a good source of info that llms don't look at unless explicitly prompted to do so.

[arppacket]

Right now, it might not be worth the cost. That might change in future so that they consider it by default?

[JustFinishedBSG]

> While it's noisy and complicated for humans to read through, this session info is primarily for future AI to read and use as additional input for their tasks.

Context rot is very much a thing. May still be for future agents. Dumping tens/hundreds of thousand of trash tokens into context very much worsen the performance of the agent

[nsonha]

It's just noise for AI too. There is no reason to be lazy with context management when you can simply ask the AI to write the summary of the session. But even that is hardly useful when AI can just read the source of truth which is the code and committed docs

[jfoster]

Future AIs can probably infer the requirements better than humans can write them.