There's nothing passionate. Calling bullshit for what it is is not passionate, and we need more of calling out.

...you reacted to this blogpost by calling it "bullshit" and "bloated", and criticizing it with obvious hyperbole ("random markdown files randomly injectect into the tiny context", "15000th note", "dozens of times before", "useless experiment", "random injection").

You're allowed to feel emotion -- that wasn't a refutation. But denying that you indeed are typing with responding seems plainly obstinate, sorry. Again I will do my best to respond in line with the rules of this forum, even if I don't feel the same grace being given in return.

  I would say that you are much more passionate

What makes you say that? Because I disagree? A comment starting with "I'll try to reply as substantively as I can" isn't exactly firey, much less one that makes pain to cede ground and offer friendly offramps to the polemics.

  Dismissing actual real-life user experience

Well I have positive actual real-life user experience with these products. It seems we're at an impasse, there! 1-1=0, after all. This is why anecdotal evidence isn't valid, generally speaking.

  It is both tiny and easily polluted

This just comes down to "nuh-uh". So: yeah-huh! 133% of War and Peace is a lot of text to hold at the forefront of one's mind simultaneously.

   that million token context is still incapable of maintaining and recalling any of the "memories" with any consistency. Which the article itself acknowledges.

That's the exact opposite of the findings of the experiment that you yourself quoted: achieving an 82% improvement on a challenging benchmark without detailed instructions for memory use is in no sense "incapable".

  Here are your biases showing. Anthropic calls random markdown files "memories" and you immediately take them at their word.

You're not taking the time to read what I'm writing :( "It fits the colloquial definition" objectively isn't taking Anthropic "at their word". On an absolute, undeniable, factual level, this attempted ad-hominem is based on a faulty premise.

  These are not memories. These are objectively random markdown files

What are memories, and why does text stored in a computer "objectively" not fit that definition? Even if you offered one now (which, again, would be scientifically unsound), it'd be too late; it's beyond obvious that this reasoning is a-posteriori.

  Yes, it's an accepted industry jargon, but you don't have to behave that it does something else than what it does.

How am I doing that, specifically? You're the one taking issue with the industry jargon, and I offered no description of "what it does" in the first place, much less one that conflicts with some singular objective definition of "memory" (which, again, does not exist).

  Of course it's the only way to make Claude actually read and act on it.

This is objectively incorrect on an empirical level, as proven in the article we are commenting under.

  No. No it doesn't. It considers "components of agent memory" and focuses solely on "how we can write markdown files", and spends probably less than 1% on "how we can make sure the agent actually uses them". Even the conclusion completely ignores it

A) The desciption I gave does not require this arbitrary focus of yours.

B) Again, every single empirical result in the entire paper relies on the mechanism that you find to be non-existent.