> Irrelevant; you were the one who was raising anecdotal evidence and defending it when challenged.

That "anecdotal" evidence is literally explicitly stated in the article

> Irrelevant; you were discussing the context window itself, not how many lines of text are loaded per note.

Literally quoting the article: "longer instruction files reduce adherence"

It doesn't matter if the context is 1mln tokens if a file with more than 200 lines can lead to loss of adherence and context pollution.

It doesn't matter if it is marketed as having the ability to hold the entirety of War and Piece if in reality it cannot hold much without being polluted.

> That's how analogues work.

Analogues never work.

> Irrelevant quote.

That is basically the entirety of your entire "argument". "What I say is correct, and Anthropic's article is seminal. Whatever you say, including quoting Anthropic's own materials is irrelevant if it doesn't fit my pre-biased worldview."

> The entire article is about Claude using memory.

No, it's not really about that once you cut to the meat and heart of it.

> Is it possible that you haven't used Claude since Sonnet 3.7?

Is is possible for you to not assign your opponents thoughts and words while completely dismissing what they are actually telling you? Apparently not.

> You're able to feed many thousands of sentences of instructions and memories if you'd like to, it's just inefficient.

Lol. So the size of the context is irrelevant when it's inneficient, and the models apparently lose adherence at as much as 200 lines of instructions. But sure, calling this "tiny context" somehow insults your sensibilities.

Anyway. I've seen enough of your "arguments" to know I couldn't care less to continue this conversation.

Adieu.