[guenthert]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a profound insight is gathered in session 1 with user A and stored in context A1, this might be available to user A in session 2, if that still has access to context A1, but won't be available to user B in any of his/her sessions until that NN is retrained with input which includes at least some of the information from context A1.

[threethirtytwo]

You are wrong again in every possible count. Since you think in terms of algebra think like this: there is context SP which is context window shared between all sessions, that is called the system prompt. Then there is the context window called memory M which is shared between all sessions under a user and then finally there context CW (current window) which is the context comprised of the queries from the current chat session. Total context = SP + CW + M.

M is the context window that doesn’t require retraining that allows the LLM to “learn” in the same way humans do. This is the usual set up. But nothing prevents someone from adding a GM (general memory) shared between all users. Under this set up the LLM and harness fits and is virtually identical to how humans learn at a high level.

But this is besides the point because even if none of this was done. Just a context window or just training is in itself a form of learning. There was no action taken in your algebraic example where learning did not occur.