Its a bit wild to me that there hasnt been a pushback against enabling memories by frontier AI companies. This data is something advertisers could only dream off. Before AI, most of this data was approximated by whatever little information could be gleaned from the websites we visit. But now people are handing over their deepest darkest secrets and pretty much EVERYTHING to AI on a platter.
Maybe its just me who is paranoid because I happen to spend a fair bit of time in the advertising world, but the first thing I did when memory was launched on Claude/Chatgpt - was to switch them off. And it helps that they are not even useful, and would actually downgrade your experience by polluting the context of irrelevant details. I go one step ahead - if there is a personal discussion you want to have - maybe use another account like provided by the likes of companies like openrouter etc.
I would argue that we should have regulation that should prohibit the storage of user profile information by AI companies, and any such memories feature should exclusively reside on the users servers. Infact, maybe go one step ahead, that 'memory' firms cannot be owned by AI firms and vice versa.
I dont get it either - I was going to ask the same question but found this.
We have been doing the exact opposite - instead of micro VM's we are giving agents larger VMs.
Previously we were giving them 1GB RAM VM's - now we have upped to 4 GB RAM VM's. When the agent is working - the real cost is in the inference. There is no reason to keep the agent waiting because your VM is too damn slow. So we moved to larger and faster VMs.
The agent might install a package, or run a script - and now it moves along just faster. Not to mention that if the agent is installing a 'fat' SDK, like maybe android sdk, a thicker RAM just moves along everything smoothly without breakages. The incremental amount we pay for the bigger VM is more than justified by the increase in agent performance.
And all the tooling that has already been built up for standard human operated VM's just works pretty well out of the box. We are able to spin up VM's pretty much on demand and purge them clean once the work is done.
We are moving to 8 GB RAMs/4CPUs sometime this year, and GPU's hopefully sometime next.
There is an assumption that everyone is making here - that China will not do the same. It is entirely possible, that China restricts their frontier models - as and when they are developed - to only Chinese citizens. And India follows along.
IMO AI is different from everything else. It is a weapon as potent as nuclear. It is only natural that it be treated as one.
I see a lot of skepticism in Dario's position in this forum. But allow me to argue the opposite.
I think the key argument that this skepticism lies on is that he himself gained from AI - specifically building Frontier AI models - and this is basically regulatory capture disguised as doomerism.
Fair points - but I think this is a more charitable version of this. Dario is building Anthropic because that is the most valuable thing he can build, or at least that is what his conviction has been. The success of Anthropic and the impending IPO is proof that this conviction has not only been correct but has largely played out very successfully. Dario understands the true nature of AI and he has welded that power to immense personal benefit.
But maybe he also sees the potential danger to AI which he is trying to address through these posts and regulatory initiatives. There are three reasons why I would support the charitable version:
Firstly, personal gain and societal benefit can coexist in the same individual. And both of them might drive towards opposite agendas. But that doesn't necessarily have to mean that the impulse driving the societal benefit is not earnest. In fact if you would look at Dario’s proposal - like closing the data broker loophole - several of them could constrain Anthropic instead of benefitting them.
Secondly, he expects that his concerns on the negative potential of AI will be taken seriously, if he is actually running the Frontier AI company. And there is some truth to this argument. The only reason we are discussing this is because he is the CEO of Anthropic. He is probably the most influential figure outside of the government who has to be taken seriously when he claims something like this.
Thirdly, and most importantly, Dario has previously demonstrated that he is willing to sacrifice personal/corporate gains for societal benefits. The proof is the classification by the US DoD of Anthropic as a supply chain risk when Anthropic refused to completely cooperate with the military to develop fully Autonomous AI weapons and enable mass surveillance. It would have been only too easy for Dario to accept if personal benefit was his only concern - and OpenAI was more than ready to step in their place.
Even with Mythos - Anthropic could have released the model to the public broadly. But they took their time to reduce the potential danger - as best as they could. Despite the fact that GPT-5.5 was nipping in the buds in what is becoming a very competitive market.
That being said, just because Dario is acting in good faith, does not mean that this will all result in good outcomes. The FAA-styled regulation could still end up favoring incumbents - some of whom might choose to not act in good faith. A more diversified capability can potentially limit that power ending up in a small number of wrong hands. Just because Anthropic is the leader right now, doesn't mean that they will always be. Maybe someone else tomorrow benefits from this regulatory capture at the expense of everyone else - and Dario might have a hand in driving it.
Broadly agree to this position - I think there are some people skeptical that Anthropic is doing this for regulatory capture - but I think there are being honest about they are seeing and how regulation should catch up.
I for one, believe that we should pause all work on AI for the forseeable future. This is almost impossible to orchestrate - but we should still try nevertheless. Maybe we are not able to pause, but we are able to slow down. That might give us more room, to maybe able to pause in the future. But going ahead is too dangerous.
And its not just Anthropic which is saying this. Even Geoffry Hinton has said the same thing. If there is a non-zero chance that AI can kill all of humanity, and both Geoffry and Anthropic have the same position, then it makes sense for us to be hundred percent sure before we move ahead. Dario/Anthropic have already made their money from AI, maybe they are just being honest about what they think lies ahead.
I think you are missing the most important part - forgetting. The missing "memory" layers is consolidation, prioritization AND forgetting (what is not important).
Also not too sure about provenance and inspectability - it is part of memory. If the source is deemed 'important' it will survive forgetting. If not, then maybe not. And its ok. I am sure you dont know the exact source who told you that the capital of France is Paris. You forgot, and its no big deal.
Keep at it - there are a ton of things you can try which will help. Try to use reddit to see what other people are looking at.
If there is one thing I can recommend you - get the Wellue O2 Monitor. This wil montior your O2 saturation through the night - if the saturation is dropping, you know that there is an issue, irrespective of what the resmed cpap claims. The resmed cpap figures cant be trusted imo.
But once you know what the saturation levels are, you can try a LOT of things which might help. Different cpap masks, head of bed elevation, mouth tape, neck straps - what you end up using will depend on your condition. But imo - dont rely on doctors to diagnose and fix you - you will have to do it yourself. Fortunatately there is a ton of people who are trying things out in reddit and extremely unlikely that you have a conditoin which is not fixable.
Just keep at it and track it using the O2 ring and try out what works for you.
You should consider getting an Wellue O2 ring. This is something you can use to monitor your oxygen saturation throughout the night. Use it with the CPAP and also otherwise. If your oxygen saturation is better with CPAP - you know that it is working. You will eventually feel better.
The main thing about CPAP is that, and imo almost everyone gets wrong, is that you need to titrate it. CPAP is sold as an Automatic Pressure device, but in practice it doesnt work like that. You almost always need to set it just 1 number below and 1 above your required pressure - more like a fixed pressure device. And getting it working correctly - with all the mask combinations, leaking issues, pressure calliberation, supporting gear like mouth tapes and neck bands - can take months. It is incredibly hard - BUT - it is worth it. The best resource for me has been the reddit to get this right.
The key is to track your saturation everyday with all the small tweaks you make and the only way to do it is using something like the O2 ring.
The bigger problem with solutions like these is that most AI already know how to use grep and search really well because of their training. Any such new tool that you handle to the AI, takes away from the cognitive capability of the AI. Humans would normally 'learn' how to operate tools like this - but the learning in LLM's is frozen and they already with a very strong depth in existing tools like grep.
For example, an AI would already use linux commands like tree to traverse the code base. And again it already has good training in this.
The other problem is that it is easy to cook up examples which demonstrate the efficacy of tools like these - but actually proving that the cognitive deficit that such tools result it, is surmounted by their efficacy in long horizon runs. My first contact instinct is that this will result in a net negative 'deployable intelligence' over long horizon runs - make the agent perform worse than using existing tools.
Proving the opposite is a non-trivial problem - but maybe it might be something you want to take up.
I was of the same view - but then there is this other trend which is putting sync back in favor. And that is that agents are becoming faster. If they are faster - it makes sense to stick around and maintain your 'context' about the task and supervise in real time. The other thing which might keep sync in fashion is that LLM providers are cutting back on cheap tokens. So you have a bigger incentive to stick around and make sure that your agent is not going astray.
The only place I use async now is when I am stepping away and there are a bunch of longer tasks on my plate. So i kick them off and then get to review them when ever I login next. However I dont use this pattern all that much and even then I am not sure if the context switching whenever I get back is really worth it.
Unless the agents get more reliable on long horizon tasks, it seems that async will have limited utility. But can easily see this going into videos feeding the twitter ai launch hype train.
I looked into Saunas in detail sometime back as a replacement/complement to exercise. There is a lot of research out there which says Saunas are as beneficial - but at the end of it I reached a similar conclusion - exercise is just better understood, so no point experimenting when something can go wrong.
To clarify - we don't read user conversations - what I'm referring to is deploy volume (how many times OpenClaw gets spun up on our infra) and direct conversations I've had with people in my network who deployed OpenClaw independently
We run upwards of a thousand sandboxes for coding agents - but these are all standard VM's that we buy off the shelf from Azure, GCP, Akamai and AWS. I am not sure why we should use this instead of the standard VM's? Pricing could be one part, but not sure if the other features resonate.
Forking is interesting, but I would need to know how it works and if it is in the blast radius of the agent execution. If we need to modify the agent to be cognizant of forking, then that is a complexity which could be very expensive to handle in terms of context. If not, then I am not sure what is the use for it.
Sandbox start time at 500ms is definitely interesting. But its something we already are on track to reproduce with a pooled batch of VM's. So not sure if that in itself is worth paying for the premium.
My two cents on the space is that agents are rapidly becoming more capable to just use the tooling developed for humans. All clouds provide a CLI which agents can already use to orchestrate - they should just use the VM's designed for humans through the CLI. Our agent can already 'login' to any VM on the cloud and use the shell exactly like a human would. No software harness is required for this capability. The agent working on a VM is indistinguishable from humans.
https://blog.nishantsoni.com
https://nonbios.ai