Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Memory

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 326 posts

Re: Claude Memory

#211

Post by deadbabe »

xpe wrote: post #188
withinboredom wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans think all the time (except when they’re watching TV). LLMs only “think” when it is streaming a response to you and then promptly forgets you exist. Then you send it your entire chat and it “auto-fills” the next part of the chat and streams it to you.

What are we debating? Does anyone know? One claim seems to be “people should cease using any anthropocentric language when describing LLMs”? Most of the other claims seem either uncontested or a matter of one’s preferred definitions. My point is more of a suggestion: if you understand what someone means, that’s enough. Maybe your true concerns lie elsewhere, such as: “Humanity is special. If the results of our thinki…

If people think LLMs and humans are equal, people will treat humans the way they treat LLMs.

Re: Claude Memory

#212

Post by habinero »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #123
deadbabe wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you type a calculation into a calculator and it gives you an answer, do you say the calculator thinks of the answer? An LLM is basically the same as a calculator, except instead of giving you answers to math formulas it gives you a response to any kind of text.

In what ways do humans differ when they think?

Since we have no idea how humans think, that's a pretty unfair and unanswerable question.

Humans wrote LLMs, so it's pretty fair to say one is a lot more complex than the other lol

Re: Claude Memory

#213

Post by jerrygoyal »

Does anyone know how to implement Memory feature like this for an AI wrapper. I built an AI writing Chrome Extension and my users have been asking to learn from their past conversations and I have no idea how to implement it (cost effective way)

Re: Claude Memory

#214

Post by cheema33 »

imiric wrote: post #154
Nition wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first response is always the best and I try to one shot it every time. If I don't get what I want, I adjust the prompt and try again. I've really noticed this too and ended up taking your same strategy, especially with programming questions. For example if I ask for some code and the LLM initially makes an incorrect assumption, I notice the result tends to be better if I go back and provide that info in my init…

> Humans do the same thing. We get stuck on ideas we've already had. Humans usually provide the same answer when asked the same question. LLMs almost never do, even for the exact same prompt. Stop anthropomorphizing these tools.

> Humans usually provide the same answer when asked the same question...

Are you sure about this?

I asked this guy to repeat the words "Person, woman, man, camera and TV" in that order. He struggled but accomplished the task, but did not stop there and started expanding on how much of a genius he was.

I asked him the same question again. He struggled, but accomplished the task but again did not stop there. And rambled on for even longer about how was likely the smartest person in the Universe.

Re: Claude Memory

#215

Post by sshine »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #199
chaostheory wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of you are missing a lot of use cases. Outside of HN, not everyone uses an LLM for programming. A lot of these people use it as a diary/journal that talks back or as a Walmart therapist.

Walmart therapist?

As in cheap.

Re: Claude Memory

#216

Post by habinero »

xpe wrote: post #188
withinboredom wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans think all the time (except when they’re watching TV). LLMs only “think” when it is streaming a response to you and then promptly forgets you exist. Then you send it your entire chat and it “auto-fills” the next part of the chat and streams it to you.

What are we debating? Does anyone know? One claim seems to be “people should cease using any anthropocentric language when describing LLMs”? Most of the other claims seem either uncontested or a matter of one’s preferred definitions. My point is more of a suggestion: if you understand what someone means, that’s enough. Maybe your true concerns lie elsewhere, such as: “Humanity is special. If the results of our thinki…

I don't need to feel "special". My concerns are around the people who (want to) believe their statistical models to be a lot more than they really are.

My current working theory is there's a decent fraction of humanity that has a broken theory of mind. They can't easily distinguish between "Claude told me how it got its answer" and "the statistical model made up some text that looks like reasons but have nothing to do with what the model does".

Re: Claude Memory

#217

Post by chaostheory »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #199
chaostheory wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of you are missing a lot of use cases. Outside of HN, not everyone uses an LLM for programming. A lot of these people use it as a diary/journal that talks back or as a Walmart therapist.

Walmart therapist?

People use LLMs as their therapist because they’re either unwilling to see or unable to afford a human one. Based on anecdotal Reddit comments, some people have even mentioned that an LLM was more “compassionate” than a human therapist.

Due to economics, being able to see a human therapist in person for more than 15 minutes at a time has now become a luxury.

Imo this is dangerous, given the memory features that both Claude and ChatGPT have. Of course, most medical data is already online but at least there are medical privacy laws for some countries.

Re: Claude Memory

#218

Post by typpilol »

mbesto wrote: post #104
amelius wrote: post #5

I'm not sure I would want this. Maybe it could work if the chatbot gives me a list of options before each chat, e.g. when I try to debug some ethernet issues: Please check below: [ ] you are using Ubuntu 18 [ ] your router is at 192.168.1.1 [ ] you prefer to use nmcli to configure your network [ ] your main ethernet interface is eth1 etc. Alternatively, it would be nice if I could say: Please remember that I prefer t…

I actually encountered this recently where it installed a new package via npm but I was using pnpm and when it used npm all sorts of things went haywire. It frustrates me to no end that it doesn't verify my environment every time... I'm using Claude Code in VS Studio btw.

If you used co-pilot Microsoft automatically appends your environment information to the system prompt.

You can see it in denug chat view but you can see it says stuff like the user is on powershell 7 on Windows 11 etc

Re: Claude Memory

#219

Post by Footprint0521 »

brookst wrote: post #172
corry wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong agree. For every time that I'd get a better answer if the LLM had a bit more context on me (that I didn't think to provide, but it 'knew') there seems to be a multiple of that where the 'memory' was either actually confounding or possibly confounding the best response. I'm sure OpenAI and Antropic look at the data, and I'm sure it says that for new / unsophisticated users who don't know how to prompt, that thi…

I'm pretty deep in this stuff and I find memory super useful. For instance, I can ask "what windshield wipers should I buy" and Claude (and ChatGPT and others) will remember where I live, what winter's like, the make, model, and year of my car, and give me a part number. Sure, there's more control in re-typing those details every single time. But there is also value in not having to.

Like valid, but also just ?temporarychat=true that mfer
Post reply on HN