[samrus]

This is really interesting. At this point you seem to be modelling real human memory

In my opinion, this should happen inside the LLM dorectly. Trying to scaffold it on top of the next token predictor isnt going to be fruitful enough. It wont get us the robot butlers we need.

But obviously thays really hard. That needs proper ML research, not primpt engineering

[Real_Egor]

Personally, I think the mechanics of memory can be universal, but the "memory structure" needs to be customized by each user individually. What gets memorized and how should be tied directly to the types of tasks being solved and the specific traits of the user.

Big corporations can only really build a "giant bucket" and dump everything into it. BUT what needs to be remembered in a conversation with a housewife vs. a programmer vs. a tourist are completely different things.

True usability will inevitably come down to personalized, purpose-driven memory. Big tech companies either have to categorize all possible tasks into a massive list and build a specific memory structure for each one, or just rely on "randomness" and "chaos".

Building the underlying mechanics but handing the "control panel" over to the user—now that would be killer.

[rodspeed]

You're probably right long term. If LLMs eventually handle memory natively with confidence and decay built in, scaffolding like this becomes unnecessary. But right now they don't, and the gap between "stores everything flat" and "models you with any epistemological rigor" is pretty wide. This is a patch for the meantime.

The other thing is that even if the model handles memory internally, you probably still want the beliefs to be inspectable and editable by the user. A hidden internal model of who you are is exactly the problem I was trying to solve. Transparency might need to stay in the scaffold layer regardless.