[kuboble]

As some others have mentioned.

I think the best option would be tell a user who is about to resurrect a conversation that has been evicted from cache that the session is not cached anymore and the user will have to face a full cost of replaying a session, not only the incremental question and answer.

(In understand under the hood that llms are n^2 by default but it's very counter intuitive - and given how popular cc is becoming outside of nerd circles, probably smaller and smaller fraction of users is aware of it)

I would like to decide on it case by case. Sometimes the session has some really deep insight I want to preserve, sometimes it's discardable.

[a_t48]

I got exactly this warning message yesterday, saying that it could use up a significant amount of my token budget if I resumed the conversation without compaction.

[jhogendorn]

Compaction wont save you, in fact calling compaction will eat about 3-5x the cold cache cost in usage ive found.

[_flux]

Wouldn't it help if the system did compaction before the eviction happens? But the problem is that Claude probably don't want to automatically compact all sessions that have been left idle for one hour (and very likely abandoned already), that would probably introduce even more additional costs.

Maybe the UI could do that for sessions that the user hasn't left yet, when the deadline comes near.

[doubleunplussed]

I saw that too, but that's actually even worse on cache - the entire conversation is then a cache miss and needs to be loaded in in order to do the compaction. Then the resulting compacted conversation is also a cache miss.

You ideally want to compact before the conversation is evicted from cache. If you knew you were going to use the conversation again later after cache expiry, you might do this deliberately before leaving a session.

Anthropic could do this automatically before cache expiry, though it would be hard to get right - they'd be wasting a lot of compute compacting conversations that were never going to be resumed anyway.

[onemoresoop]

Im glad they chose to do that as opposed to hidden behavior changes that only confuse users more.

[fhub]

Really good to know. That should have made it into their update letter in point (2). Empowering the user to choose is the right call.

[skeledrew]

> I think the best option would be tell a user who is about to resurrect a conversation that has been evicted from cache that the session is not cached anymore and the user will have to face a full cost of replaying a session

This feature has been live for a few days/weeks now, and with that knowledge I try remember to a least get a process report written when I'm for example close to the quota limit and the context is reasonably large. Or continue with a /compact, but that tends to lead to be having to repeat some things that didn't get included in the summary. Context management is just hard.

[Terretta]

Right, and reloading that context is the same cost as refilling the cache, so really, they're charging the same, and making it hard.