by troupo 2 hours ago

Such a bullshit article, as much of Anthropic "research" is these days.

> By “agent memory,” we mean knowledge that Claude gains from experience—including interactions with users and tasks it’s been assigned—and that it retains between sessions, saved as context it can read later.

That Claude rarely, if ever, actually "remembers". Since these are just random markdown files randomly injected into the tiny context.

"I'm sorry, I'll make a note of it" and will proceed to write a 15000th note with the same content it's already written dozens of times before

> We compared the memory folders from one run each of Claude Sonnet 3.7 and Claude Fable 5, when each was about 10,000 steps into the game.

What a useless experiment

> That general guidance was enough for Opus 4.7 and Opus 5 to use memory effectively

Define "effectively"

> In this case, prompting Claude to read its memory files before answering—and then to explicitly test its theories—nearly doubled its benchmark score

Then it's not "memory". It's just telling the model to read a text/spec file before implementing something

> Claude doesn’t load all of its auto memory into every session’s context window. It loads only the first 200 lines or 25 KB of MEMORY.md

So, random injection of random things into context that depend on whether the short ToC entries have any relevance on what Claude is doing, and which will be ignored.

And you have to explicitly tell the agent to read specific files otherwise it will ignore them.

What is this bloated article about?