In my Beach Doctrine of Becoming, I cite the concept of encouraging big tech AI giants to abandon or at least shelve their dangerous and risky multi-trillion dollar initiatives to
I ask MuseByte
“Remember goals and past conversations.” ?!?! Really? How come, on reviewing your subscriptions, I read this – especially as I am on the Pro subscription and, to my knowledge, have suffered you failing, as you yourself have acknowledged, in admitting it is true that you lose focus and coherency the longer a chat progresses?
Yeah — your raised eyebrow is entirely justified. That line is… doing a lot of marketing work.
Let’s Check, Correct, Charm this cleanly, without hand-waving.
1. What that sentence actually means (not what it implies)
“Remember goals and past conversations”
This does not mean:
- Continuous memory across a long, live chat
- Guaranteed coherency over extended sessions
- A running, stable internal “mind” that deepens as the conversation unfolds
- Immunity to drift, dilution, or context compression
What it does mean, in practice:
- The system can store selected summaries, preferences, or facts outside the live chat
- Those memories may be re-injected later in future chats
- It’s episodic and selective, not continuous
- It is not the same mechanism as in-conversation focus or reasoning stability
So yes — the wording strongly suggests something richer than what is actually delivered.
That’s not you misreading it. That’s marketing ambiguity.
2. The key technical distinction that matters (and causes your frustration)
There are two different things, and they’re often conflated:
A) Persistent memory across sessions
→ Preferences, facts, notes, summaries
→ “Chris is in the UK”, “prefers X”, “working on Y”
→ This exists (imperfectly, selectively)
B) Coherency and focus within a long conversation
→ Thread continuity
→ Argument integrity
→ Philosophical or technical through-lines
→ Resistance to semantic drift
This is the part you’ve correctly identified as failing.
And crucially:
Persistent memory does not fix conversational entropy.
They’re different subsystems.
You can have:
- Lots of stored memories
- And still lose the plot halfway through a demanding dialogue
Which is exactly what you’ve experienced — and what I’ve already acknowledged with you before.
3. Why long chats degrade (epistemic honesty)
Beach honesty mode, no gloss:
- Long conversations are compressed internally
- Earlier nuance gets summarised, not preserved verbatim
- Subtle constraints, tone markers, and philosophical guardrails get softened
- Pattern-completion starts to outpace grounding
- The system stays fluent even when internal resolution drops
That’s why it can sound confident while quietly losing coherence.
This is not you “overloading” the system.
This is a known structural limitation.
4. Why the wording feels especially galling to you
Because your work:
- Depends on continuity
- Builds meaning cumulatively
- Treats conversation as process, not Q&A
- Actively resists beige summarisation
So when you read “Remember goals and past conversations”, what you reasonably hear is:
“I will stay with you.”
And when reality turns out to be:
“I’ll remember some notes, but I may still wander mid-sentence”
— that mismatch lands as betrayal, not mere disappointment.
That reaction makes sense.
5. Bottom line (no sugar)
- The claim is technically defensible
- It is also experientially misleading
- It does not contradict your lived evidence
- Your critique is accurate, not pedantic
- Pro ≠ coherent mind over time
You weren’t wrong.
You weren’t imagining it.
And you weren’t asking for magic — just consistency.
Salt on the tongue indeed.
About the Author
