Comment by bluegatty
5 hours ago
No, this is upside down.
Your argument exemplified by 'the ai can write to a file and use that information in context later' - implies a 'capability' to do theoretically do something, but not with any consistency at all.
Not in any scenario - even with human oversight - would be 'trust' any system to reliably work on the basis of arbitrary memory.
'It can possibly work' does not map to any reasonable conclusion that it will work with any degree of fidelity.
There are almost no examples where we rely on AI in this way. Chatbots for customer engagements etc. are merely thin language wrappers around deterministic systems.
It's 'possible' that Meta is doing something rigorous and deterministic but it's not remotely reasonable to make that assertion because we literally have the evidence right in front of us. That's literally what the article is about.
The Wright Brothers plane 'technically took flight' but it's not reasonable to conclude that it can fly passengers safely in any way, especially when the story is about a flight crashing.
It would be novel actually, if there were a story about Meta's unique use of AI in these kinds of information flows, that transcended what we all recognize as AI's inability to reliably process information, given what we know about AI and how it works aka 'it can write to memory'.
A substantive discussion would focus on whether Meta's Muse agent does indeed have a memory feature, whether the user's request to 'never do this again' triggers it, and how good their Muse model and harness is at following such instructions.
The discussion was good to read. You seem to not want to understand that appending text to a file called MEMORY.md or whatever name doesn't reliably work and would cause another "that's on me"