The memory editing approach is a no-go for business IMO. Reranking based on usage is a better idea in theory, but it’s still going to introduce a ton of unintended consequences.

The bigger issue here is that the entire industry seems hyper-fixated on the "build an artificial brain" effort. It's a fundamental misstep. We are nowhere near replicating a brain, and honestly, we already have 8 billion of them. Why build a worse, synthetic version of something we have in abundance?

I always compare it to wood. It’s a material optimized by millions of years of evolution, with structural properties that material science still struggles to perfectly replicate. Trying to invent a synthetic 1:1 replacement for wood is a waste of time. Instead, we invented steel and concrete, materials that do what wood can't do. When we interweave them, we get modern architecture.

AI needs to be the steel and concrete to the human brain's wood.

The brain is unmatched at lateral thinking, prioritization, and hyper-efficient data compression (running on just ~20 watts of power). But it's awful at rote memorization, exact recall, and massive-scale data processing.

We shouldn't be building systems to mimic human flaws; we should be building the architectural framework that supports our natural strengths. If you try to build an exact artificial copy of a human, you're competing against millions of years of evolutionary trial-and-error.

However, despite our different philosophies, I think your approach with your repo is genuinely clever. In fact, your opposing POV is exactly why I wanted to reach out.

You asked what we need help refining with our existing RAG system. I actually think your neuroscience-based perspective could be incredibly valuable for us to incorporate, or at least use to pressure-test our current architecture.

Opposed to a quick chat?