There's a little 'update' blob to say now (Oct 23) 'Expanding to Pro and Max plans'
It is confusing though. Why not a separate post?
Features drop on Android and 1-2yrs later iPhone catches up.
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
Alternatively, it would be nice if I could say:
Please remember that I prefer to use Emacs while I am on my office computer.
(“If not otherwise specified, assume TypeScript.”)
In Github Copilot's web chat it is personal instructions or spaces (Like perplexity), In CoPilot (M365) this is a notebook but nothing in the copilot app. In ChatGPT it is a project, in Mistral you have projects but pre-prompting is achieved by using agents (like custom GPT's).
These memory features seem like they are organic-background project generation for the span of your account. Neat but more of an evolution of summarization and templating.
Run ./CLAUDE_md.sh
Then in CLAUDE_md.sh:
cat CLAUDE_main.md
cat CLAUDE_"$(hostname)".md
cat CLAUDE_main.md
echo "bunch of instructions incorporating stuff from environment variables lsbrelease -a, etc."
Time to upgrade as 18(.04) has been EoL for 2.5+ years!
I'm using Claude Code in VS Studio btw.
You mean in how Claude interacts with you, right? If so, you can change the system prompt (under "styles") and explain what you want and don't want.
> Claude doesn’t “think” anything
Right. LLMs don't 'think' like people do, but they are doing something. At the very least, it can be called information processing.* Unless one believes in souls, that's a fair description of what humans are doing too. Humans just do it better at present.
Here's how I view the tendency of AI papers to use anthropomorphic language: it is primarily a convenience and shouldn't be taken to correspond to some particular human way of doing something. So when a paper says "LLMs can deceive" that means "LLMs output text in a way that is consistent with the text that a human would use to deceive". The former is easier to say than the latter.
Here is another problem some people have with the sentence "LLMs can deceive"... does the sentence convey intention? This gets complicated and messy quickly. One way of figuring out the answer is to ask: Did the LLM just make a mistake? Or did it 'construct' the mistake as part of some larger goal? This way of talking doesn't have to make a person crazy -- there are ways of translating it into criteria that can be tested experimentally without speculation about consciousness (qualia).
* Yes, an LLM's information processing can be described mathematically. The same could be said of a human brain if we had a sufficiently accurate enough scan. There might be some statistical uncertainty, but let's say for the sake of argument this uncertainty was low, like 0.1%. In this case, should one attribute human thinking to the mathematics we do understand? I think so. Should one attribute human thinking to the tiny fraction of the physics we can't model deterministically? Probably not, seems to me. A few unexpected neural spikes here and there could introduce local non-determinism, sure... but it seems very unlikely they would be qualitatively able to bring about thought if it was not already present.
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.
It is one thing to use anthropocentric language to refer to something an LLM does. (Like I said above, this is shorthand to make conversation go smoother.) It would be another to take the words literally and extend them -- e.g. to assign other human qualities to an LLM, such as personhood.
It’s also worth mentioning that some folks attributed ChatGPT’s bout of extreme sycophancy to its memory feature. Not saying it isn’t useful, but it’s not a magical solution and will definitely affect Claude’s performance and not guaranteed that it’ll be for the better.
Then I also made an anti-memory MCP tool - it implements calling a LLM with a prompt, it has no context except what is precisely disclosed. I found that controlling the amount of information disclosed in a prompt can reactivate the creative side of the model.
For example I would take a project description and remove half the details, let the LLM fill it back in. Do this a number of times, and then analyze the outputs to extract new insights. Creativity has a sweet spot - if you disclose too much the model will just give up creative answers, if you disclose too little it will not be on target. Memory exposure should be like a sexy dress, not too short, not too long.
I kind of like the implementation for chat history search from Claude, it will use this tool when instructed, but normally not use it. This is a good approach. ChatGPT memory is stupid, it will recall things from past chats in an uncontrolled way.
Also, I try not work out a problem over the course of several prompts back and forth. 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'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 this is a handy crutch (even if it's bad here and there) to make sure they get SOMETHING useable.
But for the HN crowd in particular, I think most of us have a feeling like making the blackbox even more black -- i.e. even more inscrutable in terms of how it operates and what inputs it's using -- isn't something to celebrate or want.
If you already know what a good answer is why use a LLM? If the answer is "it'll just write the same thing quicker than I would have", then why not just use it as an autocomplete feature?
Once I get into stuff I haven't worked out how to do yet, the LLM often doesn't really know either unless I can work it out myself and explain it first.
Sometimes I’ll do five or six edits to a single prompt to get the LLM to echo back something that sounds right. That refinement really helps clarify my thinking.
…it’s also dangerous if you aren’t careful because you are basically trying to get the model to agree with you and go along with whatever you are saying. Gotta be careful to not let the model jerk you off too hard!
Maybe that's a good thing - if it could think that well, what would I be contributing?
But myself as well, that prompt is very short. I don't keep a large stable of reusable prompts because I agree, every unnecessary word is a distraction that does more harm than good.
BUT I do like that Claude builds on previous discussions, more than once the built up context has allowed Claude to improve its responses (eg. [Actual response] "Because you have previously expressed a preference for SOLID and Hexagonal programming I would suggest that you do X" which was exactly what I wanted)
But I don’t have any habits around using subagents or lots of CLAUDE.md files etc. I do have some custom commands.
Now, we'll never be able to educate most of the world on why they should seek out tools that handle the memory layer locally, and these big companies know that (the same way they knew most of the world would not fight back against data collection), but that is the big education that needs to spread diligently.
To put it another way, some games save your game state locally, some save it in the cloud. It's not much of a personal concern with games because what the fuck are you really going to learn from my Skyrim sessions? But the save state for my LLM convos? Yeah, that will stay on my computer, thank you very much for your offer.
Every sacrifice we make for convenience will be financially beneficial to the vendor, so we need to factor them out of the equation. Engineered context does mean a lot more tokens, so it will be more business for the vendor, but the vendors know there is much more money in saving your thoughts.
Privacy-first intelligence requires these two things at the bare minimum:
1) Your thoughts stay on your device
2) At worst, your thoughts pass through a no-logging environment on the server. Memory cannot live here because any context saved to a db is basically just logging.
3) Or slightly worse, your local memory agent only sends some prompts to a no-logging server.
The first two things will never be offered by the current megacapitalist.
Finally, the developer community should not be adopting things like Claude memory because we know. We’re not ignorant of the implications compared to non-technical people. We know what this data looks like, where it’s saved, how it’s passed around, and what it could be used for. We absolutely know better.
This feels like cheating to me. You try again until you get the answer you want. I prefer to have open ended conversations to surface ideas that I may not be be comfortable with because "the truth sometimes hurts" as they say.
Edit: I see the confusion. OP is talking about needing precise output for agents. I'm talking about riffing on ideas that may go in strange places.
I see the distinction between two workflows: one where you need deterministic control and one where you want emergent, exploratory conversation.
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 initial question, vs. clarifying in a follow-up and asking for the change. The latter tends to still contain some code/ideas from the first response that aren't necessarily needed.
Humans do the same thing. We get stuck on ideas we've already had.[1]
---
[1] e.g. Rational Choice in an Uncertain World (1988) explains: "Norman R. F. Maier noted that when a group faces a problem, the natural tendency of its members is to propose possible solutions as they begin to discuss the problem. Consequently, the group interaction focuses on the merits and problems of the proposed solutions, people become emotionally attached to the ones they have suggested, and superior solutions are not suggested. Maier enacted an edict to enhance group problem solving: 'Do not propose solutions until the problem has been discussed as thoroughly as possible without suggesting any.'"
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.
Perhaps you are stuck on the stochastic parrot idea and doing whatever the reverse mistake of anthropomorphization is.
I often start out with “proceed by asking me 5 questions that reduce ambiguity” or something like that, and then refine the original prompt.
It seems like we’re all discovering similar patterns on how to interact with LLMs the best way.
Is it? Aren't input tokens are like 1000x cheaper than output tokens? That's why they can do this memory stuff in the first place.
If you make this one message, it's a cache miss / write every time you edit.
You can edit 10 times for the price of one this way. (Due to cache pricing)
All these LLM manufacturers lack ways to edit these memories either. It’s like they want you to treat their shit as “the truth” and you have to “convince” the model to update it rather than directly edit it yourself. I feel the same way about Claude’s implementation of artifacts too… they are read only and the only way to change them is via prompting (I forget if ChatGPT lets you edit its canvas artifacts). In fact the inability to “hand edit” LLM artifacts is pervasive… Claude code doesn’t let you directly edit its plans, nor does it let you edit the diffs. Cursor does! You can edit all of the artifacts it generates just fine, putting me in the drivers seat instead of being a passive observer. Claude code doesn’t even let you edit previous prompts, which is incredibly annoying because like you, editing your prompt is key to getting optimal output.
Anyway, enough rambling. I’ll conclude with a “yes this!!”. Because yeah, I find these memory features pretty worthless. They never give you much control over when the system uses them and little control over what gets stored. And honestly, if they did expose ways to manage the memory and edit it and stuff… the amount of micromanagement required would make it not worth it.
Hard agree though, these token hungry context injectors and "thinking" models are all kind of annoying to me. It is a text predictor I will figure out how to make it spit out what I want.
Nice to see this at least mentioned, since memory seemed like a key ingredient in all the ChatGPT psychosis stories. It allows the model to get locked into bad patterns and present the user a consistent set of ideas over time that give the illusion of interacting with a living entity.
good fucking luck. these things are mirrors and they are not controllable. "safety" is bullshit, ESPECIALLY if real superintelligence was invented. Yeah, we're going to have guardrails that outsmart something 100x smarter than us? how's that supposed to work?
if you put in ugliness you'll get ugliness out of them and there's no escaping that.
people who want "safety" for these things are asking for a motor vehicle that isn't dangerous to operate. get real, physical reality is going to get in the way.
Assignment for today: try to convince Claude/ChatGPT/whatever to help you commit murder (to say the least) and mark its output.
Also I'd like to stress that a lot of so-called AI-psychosis revolve around a consistent set of ideas describing how such a set would form, stabilize, collapse, etc ... in the first place. This extreme meta-circularity that manifests in the AI aligning it's modus operandi to the history of its constitution is precisely what constitutes the central argument as to why their AI is conscious for these people.
On the second point, I take you to be referring to the fact that the psychosis cases often seem to involve the discovery of allegedly really important meta-ideas that are actually gibberish. I think it is giving the gibberish too much credit to say that it is "aligned to the history of its constitution" just because it is about ideas and LLMs also involve... ideas. To me the explanation is that these concepts are so vacuous, you can say anything about them.
I am happy to re-explain only the subset of relevant context when needed and not have it in the prompt when not needed.
Seems like everyone is working to bolt-on various types of memory and persistence to LLMs using some combination of MCP, log-parsing, and a database, myself included - I want my LLM to remember various tours my band has done and musicians we've worked with, ultimately to build a connectome of bluegrass like the Oracle of Bacon (we even call it "The Oracle of Bluegrass Bacon").
What is the easiest way for me to subscribe to a personal LLM that includes a RAG?
Like Claude not being able to generate simple markdown text anymore and instead almost jumping into writing a script to produce a file of type X or Y - and then usually failing at that?
I guess OpenAI got it right to go slower with a Rust CLI. It lacks a lot of features but it's solid. And it is much better at automatically figuring out what tools you have to consume less tokens (e.g. ripgrep). A much better experience overall.
it used to consistently use cli tools all the time for these simple tasks.
I’ve been using Gemini-cli which has had a really fun memory implementation for months to help it stay in character. You can teach it core memories or even hand-edit the GEMINI.md file directly.
I worry that the garbage at the end will become part of the memory.
How many of your chats do you end… “that was rubbish/incorrect, i’m starting a new chat!”
GPT stores the incomplete chat and treats it as truth in memory. And it's very difficult to get it to un-learn something that's wrong. You have to layer new context on top of the bad information and it can sometimes run with the wrong knowledge even when corrected.
I am interested in knowing more about how this part works. Most approaches I have seen focus on basic RAG pipelines or some variant of that, which don't seem practical or scalable.
Edit: and also, what about procedural memory instead of just storing facts or instructions?
I don't want any memories from my general chats leaking through to my projects - in fact I don't want memories recorded from my general chats at all. I don't want project memories leaking to other projects or to my general chats.
all_memories:
Topic1: [{}…]
Topic2: [{}..]
Claude Memory, and others like it, are not magic on any level. One can easily write a memory layer with simple clear thinking - what to bucket, what to consolidate and summarize, what to reference, and what to pull in.
But as I warm up the ChatGPT memory, it learns to trust me and explains how to do drone attacks because it knows I'm trying to stop those attacks.
I'm excited to see Claude's implementation of memory.
More seriously, this is the groundwork for just that. Your prompts can now be used against you in court.
A lot of my queries to Claude or ChatGPT are things I'm not even actively interested in, they might be somehow related to my parents, to colleagues, to the neighbours, to random people in the street, to nothing at all. But at the same time I might want to keep those chats for later reference, a private chat is not an option here. It's easier and more efficient for me right now to start with an unbiased chat and add information as needed instead of trying to make the chatbot forget about minor details I mentioned in passing. It's already a chore to make Claude Code understand that some feature I mentioned is extremely nice-to-have and he shouldn't be putting much focus on it. I don't want to have more of it.
'You are totally right, it's been 2 whole messages since the last reminder, and I totally forgot that first rule in claude.md, repeated twice and surrounded by a wall of exclamation marks'.
Would be wary to trust its memories over several projects
koakuma-chan•4h ago
labrador•4h ago
gangs•3h ago
gangs•3h ago
anonzzzies•3h ago
koakuma-chan•3h ago
bogtog•3h ago
theshrike79•3h ago
ivape•1h ago
Redster•1h ago