We published our research in December and told Chroma's CEO Jeff. 4 months later, Chroma republished it without citing it. We think this sets a pretty bad precedent:
Out of curiosity did you reach out privately to explain you were surprised by their omission, and give them a change to update things? or did you go straight into the public story about copycats not giving credit where credit is due? Because it seems very conceivable to me that in the game of telephone of getting something out there some things may have been lost that might have been added in if you had reached out in good will. If you had, and they still ignored, that would be a different story entirely.
Is there a reason to prune individually instead of introducing a tombstoning approach like kimi?
Most of my harnesses around agentic retrieval wind up implementing the poor man’s version of this via isolated context windows and recursion. But it seems like an entire trajectory is more likely to be erroneous than its docs, and you could just rewrite true positives in poor trajectories as the summary?
> When the context gets edited and compressed enough, it sometimes stops behaving like something that needs to be managed, and starts reconstructing what it needs automatically.
8 comments
https://x.com/maxrumpf/status/2037365748973384154
Most of my harnesses around agentic retrieval wind up implementing the poor man’s version of this via isolated context windows and recursion. But it seems like an entire trajectory is more likely to be erroneous than its docs, and you could just rewrite true positives in poor trajectories as the summary?
> When the context gets edited and compressed enough, it sometimes stops behaving like something that needs to be managed, and starts reconstructing what it needs automatically.
Do you have examples?