As some others have mentioned.

I think the best option would be tell a user who is about to resurrect a conversation that has been evicted from cache that the session is not cached anymore and the user will have to face a full cost of replaying a session, not only the incremental question and answer.

(In understand under the hood that llms are n^2 by default but it's very counter intuitive - and given how popular cc is becoming outside of nerd circles, probably smaller and smaller fraction of users is aware of it)

I would like to decide on it case by case. Sometimes the session has some really deep insight I want to preserve, sometimes it's discardable.

▲

a_t48 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I got exactly this warning message yesterday, saying that it could use up a significant amount of my token budget if I resumed the conversation without compaction.

	▲	onemoresoop 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Im glad they chose to do that as opposed to hidden behavior changes that only confuse users more.
	▲	fhub 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Really good to know. That should have made it into their update letter in point (2). Empowering the user to choose is the right call.

▲

skeledrew 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think the best option would be tell a user who is about to resurrect a conversation that has been evicted from cache that the session is not cached anymore and the user will have to face a full cost of replaying a session

This feature has been live for a few days/weeks now, and with that knowledge I try remember to a least get a process report written when I'm for example close to the quota limit and the context is reasonably large. Or continue with a /compact, but that tends to lead to be having to repeat some things that didn't get included in the summary. Context management is just hard.

	▲	Terretta 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, and reloading that context is the same cost as refilling the cache, so really, they're charging the same, and making it hard.