> Reading such a passionate take as someone who has looked up is a strange experience, I must admit.

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

I would say that you are much more passionate about this and have a prior bias that makes you see something that's not there in Anthropic's marketing materials

> Complaining about your anecdotal experiences with Claude(Code, hopefully?) isn't a serious criticism

Dismissing actual real-life user experience that anyone who's ever dealt with Claude Code as "anecdotal experience" is exactly why these self-congratulatory articles exist. Even if they mention exactly these issues in passing.

> and calling 1,000,000 tokens of context "tiny" seems like a plainly unreasonable bar.

It is both tiny and easily polluted. Its training data will easily override any and all data in the context even early on in the session. And yes, that million token context is still incapable of maintaining and recalling any of the "memories" with any consistency. Which the article itself acknowledges.

> The experiment is testing their fixes to the problem you lamented just one sentence prior.

These experiments are useless because they invent a problem and valiantly find solutions for it never measuring whether it has any actual impact in real life.

So what if new way of writing summaries is marginally better than the old way? It doesn't matter if the only way to make Claude reliably use them is to explicitly tell it to read them?

> It fits the colloquial definition, and there is no specific scientific definition in CogSci, CogPsych, Neuro, CogNeuro, NeuroPsych, nor philosophy

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

These are not memories. These are objectively random markdown files whose only existence is assured by random harness injections and whatever claude retains in its current context from the first 200 lines of an injected ToC.

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

Or that explicitly telling Claude "read a specific markdown file in your memory" is in any way, shape, or form different from "read a specific markdown file in specs directory".

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

> It's discussing the efficacy of proactive state management during idle periods for longrunning LLM-backed agents.

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 despite this:

--- start quote ---

Injected memories use up valuable tokens, and an incorrect note can be carried into every session. Loading a note also doesn’t guarantee that Claude acts on it: our documentation on Claude Code warns that longer instruction files reduce adherence [1 000 000 tokens of context is huge lol - troupo]

...

It loads only the first 200 lines or 25 KB of MEMORY.md [but we sure love the sound of our voice deacribing how well it can write the hundreds of tiny files – troupo]

--- end quote ---