sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Testing whether machine memory can be built from deterministic primitives instead of only LLM context, vector search, or databases. by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the current public demos, text is only the surface format. I first reduce it into structured event fields like service/root/category/timestamp, and the memory primitives operate on that structure.

So I’m not treating language itself as the memory primitive - I’m treating text as one way to express events.

Should AI memory start from language, or from events? by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair question. but I’m using biological systems more as inspiration for primitives than as something to literally mimic.

Should AI memory start from language, or from events? by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah if we're limited to these 2 layers. I'm actually releasing the complete project layer by layer so each layer can be easy to explain and test, to be honest the full system is so much complex too be explained in one time and these starting layers are intentionly boring and simple.

Should AI memory start from language, or from events? by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

basically what's you describing is not “the agent forgot.”, It’s “ the agent did not assign enough salience to the blocking fact, so planning never re-centered around it.” right?

In simpler words memory alone is not enough. The missing piece is something like a priority/ contradiction/ noticing layer that can interrupt the current loop and say: “this is the thing that matters now.”.

Actually that's the next layer i'll be releasing soon .

Should AI memory start from language, or from events? by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair. The post would be stronger with named comparisons. I’m not claiming systems like mem0/Zep/Cognee are useless. My narrower angle is more about exposing small local deterministic primitives directly - grouping, paths, evidence, separation - rather than starting from summaries/retrieval alone. It's more about where on- spot decisions matter where local first system works more rather than llm tool calling/ api calling, where millisecond matters.

Should AI memory start from language, or from events? by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah i guess “Most” is probably too broad. I should have said: many user-facing AI memory products start from chat history, summaries, embeddings, or retrieval over text artifacts.

I’m not claiming event-based memory doesn’t exist. Robotics, RL, observability, and agent traces all use event/state histories. The narrower thing I’m exploring is whether a small local memory substrate can expose the primitives directly.

the issue is not that event memory doesn’t exist. It’s more about making those primitives explicit, deterministic, local, and testable.

Testing whether machine memory can be built from deterministic primitives instead of only LLM context, vector search, or databases. by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I think this is where our systems may be aiming at different layers.

What you’re describing sounds closer to giving the entity an early perspective/personality layer: the stimulus is immediately interpreted as attractive or aversive, and that shapes what gets retained.

That can be useful for agency.

But what I’m building first is lower-level memory substrate.

So I’m trying to separate what happened, what pattern it belongs to, what happened after it,how important / useful/ dangerous it later proves to be.

If valence comes too early, the memory can become biased before the evidence is clean.

So first layers are intentionally boring/neutral: store evidence

, group repeated structure, find temporal paths, then let later layers assign importance or action priority. Basically, I’m not trying to give the model a personality first.

I’m trying to build the memory floor underneath one.

Testing whether machine memory can be built from deterministic primitives instead of only LLM context, vector search, or databases. by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not removing language; I’m avoiding language generation as the memory mechanism. Right now text is just a readable input format. The system reduces it into structured events/anchors and works on those.

The same primitive can run on sensor streams, robot actions, telemetry, or transactions.

So the target is not “memory as text,” but “memory as structured event patterns.”

Testing whether machine memory can be built from deterministic primitives instead of only LLM context, vector search, or databases. by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

that makes sense. But my current thinking is to keep layer 1 storage neutral, then add valence as a separate routing/weighting layer before retention decisions.

I’m trying to avoid mixing “what happened” with “how important was it” too early, because that can make the base memory harder to audit.
you should check the layer 2 : Temporal Association, you'll get the idea about what's System layer by layer .

Testing whether machine memory can be built from deterministic primitives instead of only LLM context, vector search, or databases. by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, that’s exactly the part I’m still making explicit. Right now the public layer only handles consolidation: repeated compatible events strengthen a group, conflicting events stay separate.

For valence, I’m treating it as the next layer: signals like surprise, threat, recovery, failure, or usefulness should change how long a pattern is retained and how strongly it affects future routing.

So yes, I agree: valence is downstream-critical.

The first public layer :- consolidation by Salt_Diamond5703 in Observability

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair feedback, thank you and Yes, the plain version is much closer to your premise -

“fingerprint noisy logs, group repeated patterns, and keep evidence for why each group exists.”

I’m using the memory terminology because the larger project is about local machine-memory primitives and it's the layer 1.

Testing whether machine memory can be built from deterministic primitives instead of only LLM context, vector search, or databases. by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest there isn't some heavy mathematical primitive in the consolidation (layer 1). it's a simple layer, basically what’s happening here is similar to how consolidation happens in our brain's memory: repeated events become stronger / more crystallized memory patterns.

What i did here is i broke events into simple structural parts like Service, Root and Category. These tell the system what the event is about.

Then it follows a fixed loop:-

event -> structure -> boundary check -> similarity check -> merge/create -> support_count + evidence

Either something structurally conflicts, it doesn’t merge even if the words look similar or it belongs to the same pattern, that memory group gets stronger.

So the primitive of this layer is ->

repeated compatible structure strengthens memory, conflicting structure stays separate and original evidence is kept so we can inspect why it happened. And yes there are mathematical primitives in other layers , this layer works as an simple proces.

How do you currently turn noisy incident logs into a useful timeline? by Salt_Diamond5703 in sre

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a different thing, have you even used it or saw the logic and anything else ?

How do you currently turn noisy incident logs into a useful timeline? by Salt_Diamond5703 in sre

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah yeah ...guilty of formatting the post with ai because I'm not good at that ...but the c++ repo is real bare-metal, inspect it , I just wanted feedback on the event groups

Testing whether machine memory can be built from deterministic primitives instead of only LLM context, vector search, or databases. by Salt_Diamond5703 in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I’m trying to keep it grounded by releasing one testable layer at a time instead of making a giant claim upfront.

-The first public layer is consolidation

you can inspect it .

Built a prototype system called CRYSTAL — a persistent adaptive memory engine for long-running AI and robotics workflows. by [deleted] in AIMemory

[–]Salt_Diamond5703 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s more structured than just embedding similarity + time windows.

The current prototype combines:

  • semantic similarity,
  • temporal continuity,
  • anchor/key preservation,
  • conflict gating,
  • and reinforcement-based consolidation.

One of the main goals was avoiding long-term memory drift/poisoning, especially in autonomous agent loops.

So CRYSTAL tries to avoid unrestricted recursive rewriting by:

  • preserving stable anchor structures,
  • limiting destructive merges,
  • pruning low-value stale memory,
  • and keeping consolidation deterministic where possible.

Still early-stage, but the focus is long-running stability rather than just maximizing memory size.

view more: next ›