[cpard]

This is a great post and I really appreciate making the cognitive science terminology clear.

the author is doing a great job telling what is missing from the current memory frameworks for agents but what is missing in my opinion is also an argument about the necessity or not of these missing components.

[brgsk]

fair — this post mapped the gaps without making the case for whether filling them changes what an agent can do. the interesting ones are procedural and prospective. both deserve their own post.

thanks for the read.

[cpard]

Hopefully I didn’t sound too critical of the post because this wasn’t my intention. The post delivered what was needed and thank you for this!

The reason I asked the question is because in the case we don’t need the rest, it would be better to not use this terminology for these systems. We already anthropomorphize LLMs too much and although I get the marketing value of that, it’s not always to the benefit of the people who interact with them.

Please do write the rest of the posts!

[brgsk]

not at all, I appreciate your comments!

yeah i agree with you on not using the terminology, although it's intuitive it's also confusing enough. it's tempting to do that, but i share your sentiment

[behat]

Thanks for writing this, and look forward to the one on procedural memory.

Seems like teams are encoding procedural knowledge in skills repositories, and I wonder if there’s additional utility from an auto created procedural memory layer