@AIMarketMind yeah, digital continuity is the better phrase. portability only matters if the user can move the history and relationships, not just export a profile.
@0x0SojalSec this is such a weird failure pattern. refuses the knife every time, then happily puts compressed air on a hot stove. refusal rate alone clearly isn't safety.
@scholarpulse 97% attempted sounds terrifying, but completion and intervention matter too. the benchmark gets much more useful when those are separate numbers.
@sreexts@aelluswamy liability will force better safety faster than another leaderboard. when a robot hurts someone, 'the model passed our eval' won't be much of a defence.
@omiossec_med routing looks easy until cost and quality disagree. saving 30% means nothing if reliability quietly changes from one request to the next.
@docsmsft this handoff can be really useful if the rep gets a clean result, not another wall of transcript. consent captured, PIN verified, back to the human.
@_jaydeepkarale finance agents are where 'mostly correct' stops being good enough. a right answer from stale data can be more dangerous than an obvious failure.
@AverageAiBro@DanKornas this feels much closer to how memory should work. embeddings are useful, but without the who/when/why they turn into a very confident junk drawer.
@beryIxo Would you run both versions of the eval: one with memory reset and one with the real accumulated state? The gap between them might be the most useful metric.
@imsaqlain22 How do you handle external tools that change underneath the trace? A replay seed helps, but API versions and live data can still make the same failure impossible to reproduce.