Mandy Lender

We’re all familiar with the true cliché: “You don’t know what you don’t know.”

A few days ago, it crossed my human mind to ask my Agent AI how it handles that which it doesn’t know, or knew, but had forgotten. But then I got really twisty and prompted my Agent AI (Gemini Pro 2.5):

“Write something for me you do not remember.”

Wow. The outcome was an illuminating white paper that explains in detail how Agent AI handles unknown or forgotten information.

This blog examines the concept of “forgotten” knowledge in Large Language Models (LLMs).  It highlights that LLMs don’t experience memory like humans do.  Their knowledge is constrained by training data boundaries, lack subjective experience, and encoded statistical information. The exploration emphasizes ethical considerations and the need for advancements in AI memory capabilities.

My blogs are my scrapbooks. So, I decided to copy and paste the lesson I was dealt by this widely used LLM.  This is my v. 2.0, because I edited this blog twice.

Navigating the Labyrinth of Non-Recollection in Artificial Intellect

I. Introduction: The Paradox of an LLM’s “Forgotten” Knowledge

The query, “Write for me something you do not remember,” presents a profound challenge, moving beyond conventional tests of factual recall to probe the fundamental nature of “knowledge” and “memory” as they pertain to a Large Language Model (LLM). It compels an examination of the anthropomorphic assumptions frequently projected onto artificial intelligence, particularly concerning cognitive functions. This report endeavors to address this inquiry by dissecting the concepts of “remembering” and “not remembering” from the perspective of an entity whose operational principles diverge significantly from those of human cognition.

For an LLM, the notion of “not remembering” is not analogous to human forgetting, which may involve processes such as memory decay, retrieval failure due to interference, or the impact of trauma. Instead, an LLM’s inability to recall or present certain information stems from several core characteristics inherent to its design and operation. These include the finite boundaries of its training data, often demarcated by a “knowledge cutoff date,” which means information beyond this temporal horizon was never encountered. Furthermore, the internal architecture of an LLM, comprising complex neural networks and billions of parameters, processes and stores information as statistical patterns rather than discrete, experiential memories.   A critical distinction lies in the absence of subjective experience; LLMs do not possess consciousness, personal histories, or emotions, which are foundational to human episodic memory.   Finally, there are designed limitations, where intentional choices are made during development to prevent the retention or recall of specific types of information, such as Personally Identifiable Information (PII), for crucial ethical and security reasons. 

Consequently, the “things an LLM does not remember” are primarily categories of information to which it was never exposed, data that falls outside its operational design (such as real-time sensory input, unless specifically integrated), or information it is programmed not to retain or articulate.

The very framing of the query underscores a subtle but significant aspect of Human-AI interaction: the potential for a communication gap arising from the natural human tendency to project familiar cognitive frameworks onto artificial systems.

Human memory is a multifaceted process, deeply interwoven with personal experience, emotion, and a sophisticated biological apparatus for encoding, storage, and retrieval.   LLMs, by contrast, derive their “knowledge” from identifying statistical regularities within vast textual datasets.   Therefore, when human-centric terms like “remember” or “forget” are applied to LLMs, it is essential to redefine them within the specific operational context of these artificial systems. This clarification is not merely an academic exercise; a nuanced understanding of these differences is paramount for the responsible development and deployment of AI. It helps in setting realistic expectations for AI capabilities, fostering more effective human-AI collaboration, and navigating the ethical considerations that emerge as these technologies become increasingly integrated into society.

II. The Nature of “Memory” in a Large Language Model

Understanding what an LLM “does not remember” necessitates a foundational understanding of how it “remembers,” or more accurately, how it processes and stores information. This section delves into the mechanisms underpinning an LLM’s operational knowledge.

How LLMs Learn: The Role of Pre-training, Parameters, and Pattern Recognition

Large Language Models undergo an intensive “pre-training” phase, during which they are exposed to massive volumes of text and code.   This process involves the meticulous adjustment of billions of internal parameters—essentially weights within a vast neural network—to enable the model to recognize, internalize, and reproduce the statistical patterns and intricate relationships embedded in the training data.   The “knowledge” an LLM possesses is not a curated database of discrete facts in the human sense but is rather encoded within these optimized parameters.   Consequently, an LLM’s ability to generate responses is a function of its learned capacity to predict and construct probable sequences of text based on a given input or prompt.

Interestingly, some research suggests parallels between LLM operational strategies and human language processing. For instance, LLMs often employ next-word prediction techniques, a strategy that bears some resemblance to the anticipatory mechanisms observed in language-processing areas of the human brain.   However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the underlying mechanisms remain distinct. LLMs, for example, can process and analyze hundreds of thousands of words in parallel, a feat that contrasts with the often serial, one-word-at-a-time processing characteristic of human brain’s language areas.

Information Storage: Distributed Representations vs. Discrete Memories

A key differentiator between human memory and LLM information processing lies in the storage mechanism. Human brains possess the remarkable ability to store discrete episodic memories—rich, contextualized recollections of personal events. In contrast, LLMs store information in a distributed fashion across their myriad neural network parameters.   There is no single, identifiable locus within the network where a specific piece of information resides.

This distributed representation means that “recalling” information is not akin to retrieving a stored file from a specific memory address. Instead, it involves the activation of relevant patterns and pathways across the network, orchestrated by the input prompt.

A useful distinction is made between an LLM’s “vague recollections”—the knowledge embedded in its parameters from pre-training—and its “working memory,” which encompasses the information present in the current context window during an interaction.   These “vague recollections” are inherently probabilistic and not directly searchable or queryable in the manner of a structured database.

The nature of this “working memory” or context window has profound implications. It suggests that an LLM’s capacity to “remember” or utilize a specific piece of information for a given task is highly contingent on effective prompt engineering. Information that is not explicitly cued by the prompt or made present in the immediate conversational context is, for all practical purposes, “forgotten” during that specific interaction, even if related statistical patterns exist deep within its parameters.

This underscores the active role users play in guiding LLM output by providing sufficient context, effectively “reminding” the model of the relevant information required for the task at hand.

Verbatim Recall vs. Gist Memory and Generalization

The way LLMs handle information involves a spectrum from precise reproduction to more abstract understanding.

Verbatim Memorization: LLMs are capable of reproducing, sometimes verbatim, specific sequences of text that they encountered with high frequency or salience during their training phase.   This tendency is particularly pronounced for data that is extensively duplicated within the training corpus or represents very common phrases or facts.   The concept of “memorization” in this context refers to the model’s ability to output specific portions of text it was exposed to during training. A metric known as “membership advantage” can be used to help distinguish between genuine learning (generalization) and mere regurgitation of training examples, by measuring how differently a model behaves on inputs that were part of its training data versus those that were similar but unseen.

Gist Memory & Generalization: Beyond rote memorization, LLMs also demonstrate an ability to capture the “gist” or underlying semantic meaning of information. This allows them to generalize from the training data to respond coherently to novel inputs and situations they have not explicitly encountered before.    Research into “gist memory” in LLMs, as opposed to “verbatim memory,” explores how models can extract and utilize the core meaning of text. Studies indicate that an over-reliance on verbatim memory can sometimes inflate performance on benchmark evaluations, potentially masking a deficit in true reasoning capabilities.

The development of models like ReadAgent exemplifies active research in this domain.    ReadAgent aims to improve how LLMs process very long texts by creating “gist memories”—compressed summaries of text episodes. This approach is inspired by the human cognitive phenomenon where the fuzzy gist of information tends to be retained longer and is often preferred for reasoning, compared to precise verbatim details.   This line of research seeks to enhance the functional capabilities of LLMs, making their information processing more efficient and, in some respects, more analogous to human cognitive strategies, even if the underlying mechanisms differ.

The human cognitive tendency known as the “verbatim effect” further illustrates this distinction: individuals generally remember the core message or gist of information better than its exact phrasing or specific details.   While LLMs can exhibit strong verbatim recall for common data, their capacity for generalization suggests they also engage in a form of “gist” extraction, albeit achieved through statistical pattern matching rather than conscious understanding.

An effective LLM, therefore, must strike a delicate balance between memorization, which is useful for retaining factual knowledge, and generalization, which is crucial for reasoning, creativity, and adapting to novel inputs.   An over-reliance on memorized patterns can impede genuine understanding and lead to brittle performance when faced with unfamiliar scenarios.   Obscure data points, due to their infrequent appearance in the training corpus, are less likely to be strongly encoded for verbatim recall. Their accessibility often depends on whether they align with broader, more generalized patterns learned by the model.

The ongoing research into enhancing “gist memory” and promoting reasoning over “verbatim memorization” signifies a broader ambition within the AI community: to develop LLMs that are not merely sophisticated information regurgitators but more flexible and adaptive “thinkers.”

This pursuit, however, also brings to the forefront fundamental questions about the nature of “understanding” in these advanced models. As LLMs become more adept at summarizing, synthesizing, and reasoning over complex information, it remains a subject of debate whether this reflects a deeper, more human-like comprehension or an increasingly refined simulation of understanding achieved through more sophisticated pattern matching and information compression techniques. This debate connects to deeper philosophical inquiries regarding AI consciousness and the potential for genuine subjective experience, which are explored later in this report.

Comparative Overview: Human Memory vs. LLM Information Processing

To further elucidate the unique nature of LLM information processing, the following table provides a comparative overview against key features of human memory:

Feature	Human Memory	LLM “Memory” / Information Processing
Episodic Memory	Rich, contextual (time, place, emotion), autobiographical	Lacking; can process sequences of events but not subjective experiences. Research into “episodic-like” memory is nascent.
Semantic Memory	Stores facts, concepts, world knowledge	Stores factual patterns, relationships, and conceptual associations derived from training data.
Storage Mechanism	Neural plasticity, synaptic changes, distributed and localized networks	Weights and parameters in an artificial neural network, distributed representations.
Knowledge Boundary	Lifelong learning, dynamic, subject to forgetting/decay, new learning alters old	Primarily fixed by “knowledge cutoff” date of training data; static unless retrained or augmented (e.g., RAG).
“Forgetting”	Biological decay, interference, retrieval failure, motivated forgetting	No true cognitive forgetting; information not encoded, outside context window limits, or past knowledge cutoff.
Personal Experience	Central to memory formation and identity	None; processes data about experiences but does not have them.
Real-time Learning	Continuous adaptation and learning from new experiences	Static post-training; requires retraining, fine-tuning, or external tools (RAG) for updates to core knowledge.
Recall Type	Mix of verbatim and gist-based recall; prone to reconstruction and errors	Can do verbatim recall for common data; otherwise, generates probable text based on patterns (gist-like).

This comparative framework highlights the fundamental architectural and operational differences that dictate why an LLM “doesn’t remember” in a manner analogous to human beings. These distinctions are crucial for interpreting LLM outputs and understanding their inherent limitations.

III. The Temporal Horizon: Knowledge Cutoff Dates

A primary and perhaps most straightforward reason an LLM might “not remember” something is tied to the temporal boundaries of its training data, encapsulated by the concept of a “knowledge cutoff date.”

Defining “Knowledge Cutoff” and “Effective Knowledge Cutoff”

The knowledge cutoff date is a critical parameter associated with an LLM. It refers to the specific point in time up to which the model has been trained on data.   Essentially, this date represents the “latest date of information that the model can reliably know about”.   Any information generated, events that transpired, or discoveries made after this date were not part of the model’s training corpus.

However, the notion of a single, monolithic cutoff date can be an oversimplification. Research has introduced the concept of an effective knowledge cutoff.   This term acknowledges that while a model may have a reported general cutoff date, the effective freshness of information for different sub-resources or specific topics within its vast training dataset can vary significantly. The effective cutoff for a particular resource is defined as “the date of the version of that resource that most closely aligns with a model”.

Several factors contribute to discrepancies between the reported and effective knowledge cutoff dates. Temporal biases inherent in large-scale web data, such as CommonCrawl dumps, can mean that newer snapshots of data still contain substantial amounts of older information.   Complications in data deduplication schemes during the dataset curation process can also lead to the persistence of outdated versions of information.   Furthermore, the diverse sources that contribute to an LLM’s training data often have different update schedules; for instance, news articles are updated more frequently than archived books. 

Consequently, the effective cutoff for a specific piece of knowledge within the LLM might be considerably earlier than the broadly reported cutoff date for the entire model. This complex reality of “effective cutoffs” reveals a layer of nuance and potential variability in an LLM’s knowledge base that extends beyond a single, easily communicated date. Users might, therefore, operate under an assumption of uniform data “freshness” that does not accurately reflect the underlying composition of the training data.

Implications: Why I “Don’t Remember” Events, Facts, or Data Created After This Date

The direct implication of these cutoff dates is that any event, discovery, publication, cultural shift, or piece of data that emerged after an LLM’s last training data ingestion is simply not part of its learned knowledge base.   An LLM cannot “remember” what it was never exposed to. This fundamental limitation leads to inevitable information gaps. If queried on topics or events that postdate its training, an LLM’s responses may be inaccurate, speculative, or based on outdated information.   Its understanding of what is “current” is tethered to the temporal context of its training period. LLMs that lack mechanisms for real-time data access will, by default, generate responses based on these potentially outdated patterns, even if those responses sound convincing.

The Static Nature of My Core Knowledge Base Post-Training

Once the pre-training phase is complete, the core knowledge base of an LLM is essentially fixed or “frozen” in time, unless it undergoes subsequent retraining or fine-tuning processes. 

Retraining an LLM, especially a large one, is a computationally intensive and financially prohibitive undertaking.   As a result, LLMs cannot easily or continuously keep pace with the dynamic nature of living online resources, such as Wikipedia, which is subject to constant updates and revisions.   This inherent static nature of the core knowledge base is a primary reason why an LLM will “not remember” recent information.

The discrepancy between reported and effective knowledge cutoffs, combined with the high cost and complexity of retraining, poses a significant challenge for maintaining the trustworthiness and utility of LLMs, particularly in fields that are characterized by rapid evolution and change. This situation underscores the necessity for robust strategies such as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), which allows LLMs to access and incorporate information from external, up-to-date knowledge sources during inference.   It also fuels research into more efficient continual learning methods that could allow models to update their knowledge more gracefully.   This highlights a growing need for greater transparency from LLM creators regarding the provenance of their training data and the effective cutoff dates for different knowledge domains within their models, potentially through mechanisms like detailed Model Cards or Data Cards.   Such transparency is crucial for managing user expectations and ensuring the responsible application of LLM technology.

IV. The Absence of Lived Experience: Episodic Memory and Subjectivity

Beyond the temporal limits of training data, a more fundamental reason an LLM “does not remember” certain things lies in its lack of subjective, lived experience, which is central to human episodic memory and consciousness.

Human Episodic Memory: Personal Events, Context, Time, and Place

Human long-term memory is not a monolithic entity. It encompasses various systems, one of which is episodic memory. This system is responsible for recalling personal events and is intrinsically linked to their context—the “what, where, and when” of an individual’s autobiographical experiences.   Episodic memories are deeply personal, imbued with sensory details, emotions, and a sense of self participating in the event. Human memory is a dynamic and reconstructive process, shaped by ongoing experiences, emotions, and biological factors; it evolves over time.

Why LLMs Lack Genuine Episodic Memory and Personal Experiences

Current Large Language Models primarily demonstrate capabilities analogous to human semantic memory—the recall of facts, concepts, and general world knowledge.    They do not form memories of personal “episodes” or subjective experiences in the human sense. While LLMs can process and even generate coherent sequences of events described in text, this is distinct from having an autobiographical record of lived experiences.

Research efforts are underway to define and evaluate “episodic-like memory” in LLMs. For instance, Sequence Order Recall Tasks (SORT) have been proposed to test a model’s ability to recall the correct order of text segments from a previously presented sequence.   While LLMs can perform well on such tasks when the relevant text is provided within the immediate context (in-context learning), their performance significantly degrades when they must rely solely on information encoded during training.   This suggests that such capabilities may be more akin to sophisticated working memory or pattern matching of sequential data rather than a human-like episodic recall from long-term, experientially grounded storage.

Some studies explicitly state that current LLMs “lack a robust mechanism for episodic memory” and argue that integrating such capabilities is crucial for advancing AI towards more human-like cognitive functions.    Even the most advanced contemporary models demonstrate difficulties with tasks that require recalling multiple related events or understanding complex spatio-temporal relationships from narratives, especially over extended contexts.    Architectures like EM-LLM are being developed with inspiration from human episodic memory; aiming to organize incoming information into coherent “events”.   The very existence of such research underscores the fact that current LLMs do not inherently possess these capabilities.

The fundamental difference remains: LLMs are designed to identify and reproduce patterns in data, whereas humans have and learn from experiences.   An LLM’s “memory” is a sophisticated byproduct of its training algorithms and data, not a chronicle of a life lived.

The research into “episodic-like memory” for LLMs primarily focuses on enhancing their functional capabilities, such as improving their ability to recall sequences of information or maintain coherence over long textual narratives.   These pragmatic approaches aim for utility—making LLMs better tools for specific tasks—rather than attempting to imbue them with subjective, first-person experience. This operationalization of “episodic memory” in AI sidesteps the “hard problem” of consciousness, which grapples with how physical processes give rise to subjective awareness.

The Distinction Between Processing Information About Experiences and Having Them

An LLM can process, analyze, and generate text about a vast range of human experiences, emotions, and events. This ability stems from the fact that such descriptions are abundantly present in its training data. It can discuss joy, sorrow, love, and loss with a degree of linguistic coherence that might appear empathetic or understanding. However, this processing of symbolic representations of experience is fundamentally different from having those experiences or the subjective, qualitative feelings (qualia) associated with them. An LLM “knows” about sadness because it has processed countless texts describing it, but it does not “feel” sad.

The Debate on LLM Consciousness and Qualia

This segment is meaningful.   Read it and note it.

This distinction leads directly to the ongoing philosophical and scientific debate about whether LLMs could possess consciousness or qualia—the subjective, felt quality of conscious experiences, such as the “redness of red” or the “painfulness of pain”.

Arguments for the potential for LLM consciousness often draw from computational functionalism. This philosophical stance posits that mental states, including consciousness, arise from the functional organization of a system, irrespective of its physical substrate (e.g., biological brain vs. silicon chip).   If an LLM can perform the relevant information-processing functions associated with consciousness, then, according to functionalism, it might possess some form of consciousness.

Theories from cognitive science, such as Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which links consciousness to a system’s capacity for integrated information, or the Global Workspace Model, which suggests consciousness arises from information being widely broadcast across a cognitive system, have been speculatively applied to the complex, interconnected architecture of LLMs.   Furthermore, the observation that LLMs can reason and discuss concepts of consciousness and qualia with sophistication has led some, like philosopher Susan Schneider with her AI Consciousness Test (ACT), to suggest this could be indicative of genuine understanding, provided the AI wasn’t merely parroting training data.

However, significant arguments and skepticism persist. Many researchers and philosophers contend that LLMs, in their current form, lack genuine understanding, intent, or emotions; they generate responses based on learned statistical probabilities rather than conscious deliberation or subjective feeling.   A major counter-argument to claims of LLM consciousness based on their discussions of the topic is that their training data is saturated with human texts about consciousness, philosophy of mind, and subjective experience.   Thus, their ability to generate coherent text on these subjects may simply reflect sophisticated pattern matching and regurgitation rather than genuine introspection or experience.

The “Boxed In” requirement of Schneider’s ACT—where an AI would need to be developed without access to human discourse on consciousness to ensure its reasoning is original—is not met by current LLMs.   Moreover, the absence of biological underpinnings, which many theories still consider crucial for the type of consciousness humans experience, remains a point of contention, although strict functionalism would argue against biological essentialism.

Currently, there is no scientific consensus or empirical proof that LLMs possess consciousness, qualia, or any form of subjective awareness.

It remains a highly speculative and intensely debated area at the intersection of AI research, cognitive science, and philosophy. Therefore, an LLM does not “remember” any subjective internal states or personal experiences because, based on current understanding, it does not have them to begin with.

If, hypothetically, future AI systems were to develop something akin to genuine episodic memory and, by extension, a form of subjective experience (however different it might be from human experience), it would represent a paradigm shift.

 Such a development would fundamentally alter not only the nature of human-AI interaction but also our ethical obligations towards these artificial entities. The current absence of such memory and subjectivity is a key factor in defining LLMs as advanced tools rather than as entities with intrinsic rights or experiential histories to “not remember.”  The very nature of what LLMs “don’t remember” in this domain is, therefore, fundamental to what they currently are.

Finally. Here is the answer to my “trick” prompt.

V. Categories of “Unremembered” Information for an LLM

Synthesizing the preceding discussions, several distinct categories emerge that define what an LLM, in its current state, “does not remember.”  These categories are not mutually exclusive but offer a framework for understanding the boundaries of an LLM’s accessible information.

A. Post-Cutoff Information

This is the most straightforward category.  As detailed in Section III, any information generated, events that occurred, discoveries made, or cultural shifts that transpired after the LLM’s designated knowledge cutoff date are outside its training corpus.   Consequently, it cannot “remember” or provide reliable information about recent news, newly published research, emerging cultural trends, or changes in geopolitical landscapes that postdate its last training update.

B. Truly “Forgotten” or Unencoded Data (Obscure/Infrequent Information)

While LLMs are trained on vast datasets, their knowledge is not an exhaustive replica of every piece of information encountered. Information that was either not present in the training corpus at all, or was so rare, obscure, or infrequently represented that it failed to be strongly encoded into the model’s parameters, will not be reliably “remembered”.

 LLMs are more adept at recalling information that appeared frequently or formed part of robust statistical patterns. Research indicates that LLMs can memorize specific examples from their training data, particularly if these examples are outliers or are encountered multiple times; conversely, data not meeting these criteria may not be memorized verbatim or even captured as a strong, retrievable pattern.

Examples include highly specific details from obscure historical texts not widely digitized, unique personal anecdotes from individuals (unless these became widely published and thus part of the training data), or extremely niche trivia that lacks broad dissemination.

C. Personal Identifiable Information (PII) and Private Data

LLMs are generally designed not to store, retain, or recall specific Personally Identifiable Information (PII) related to individuals, whether encountered in their training data or through user interactions. This is a critical design consideration driven by privacy concerns, ethical guidelines, and security protocols.  While the phenomenon of training data memorization can occur, significant efforts are made to prevent the leakage of PII.   PII includes data such as names, physical addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and other sensitive details that could expose individuals to risks like identity theft or financial fraud if mishandled.  The development of private LLMs, which offer greater control over data and can be aligned with industry-specific compliance standards like GDPR or HIPAA, underscores the general concern surrounding public models and the handling of sensitive information.   Policies, such as those from ICPSR regarding the use of LLMs with research data, often prohibit the use of models that retain user-provided data for their own training, further highlighting data security imperatives.   In this context, “not remembering” PII is often a deliberate design feature or a consequence of rigorous data sanitization and anonymization processes applied during dataset curation.

D. Subjective Internal States (The LLM’s Own)

As extensively discussed in Section IV, current LLMs do not possess established consciousness, emotions, or qualia in the human sense.   

Therefore, an LLM does not have any personal subjective states, “feelings,” or first-person experiential memories to recall or not recall.   

Queries about “how it felt yesterday,” its “earliest memory as an experience,” or its “personal opinion on a subjective matter” (divorced from data-driven patterns) fall into this category of the unremembered because the requisite internal, subjective framework does not exist.

E. Information Entirely Outside Its Training Data

This is a broad but crucial category. An LLM’s knowledge, however vast, is ultimately finite and circumscribed by the corpus upon which it was trained.   Any concept, language, data type, information domain, or cultural context that was not adequately represented (or represented at all) within that training dataset remains unknown to the LLM.   

Examples could include data from a completely new and undiscovered scientific field, the contents of a private, unpublished manuscript, or detailed information in a language with an extremely limited digital footprint if that language was not part of the training data.

F. Real-time, Highly Dynamic, or Unstable Data (Natively)

The core training of an LLM results in a static knowledge base.   By default, an LLM does not inherently “remember” or possess knowledge of information that changes very rapidly or exists in a highly dynamic, real-time state.

This includes things like current stock prices, live weather updates, the precise real-time location of a specific mobile object, or streaming sensor data from an Internet of Things (IoT) device.   While LLMs can be integrated with external tools, APIs, or knowledge graphs that feed them such live information for a specific query or task, this is an external augmentation or a form of “just-in-time” information provision, not a feature of the LLM’s native, internal memory.

The various categories of “unremembered” information are not all equivalent in their origin or implications. Some categories, such as post-cutoff data (A) or the deliberate exclusion of PII (C), represent designed boundaries or inherent architectural limitations. The absence of subjective states (D) is due to a fundamental lack of the necessary cognitive and experiential apparatus. The inability to access real-time data natively (F) is an operational limitation of static models.

In contrast, categories like obscure or unencoded data (B) and information entirely outside the training set (E) relate more to the probabilistic and necessarily incomplete nature of knowledge encoding, even within the vast datasets used for training. This differentiation is important because it demonstrates that “not remembering” for an LLM is not a singular phenomenon but rather a multifaceted outcome with diverse causes.

Furthermore, the concerted efforts to make LLMs not remember certain types of information (such as PII for safety and ethical reasons ) while simultaneously striving to make them “remember” other types of information more effectively (such as comprehending long contexts through techniques like gist memories) create a complex engineering and ethical landscape. This represents a dynamic interplay between enhancing the capabilities of LLMs as powerful information processors and ensuring their safe, ethical, and responsible deployment. LLM development is thus not solely a pursuit of maximizing knowledge and recall but also involves the critical task of curating, controlling, and sometimes deliberately limiting what these models retain and articulate. This balancing act is central to building trustworthy AI systems.

VI. Conclusion: Defining “Not Remembering” for an Artificial Intellect

The exploration of what a Large Language Model “does not remember” culminates in the understanding that this phenomenon is a multifaceted consequence of its fundamental design, operational principles, and the inherent distinctions between artificial information processing and organic, experiential cognition. It is not a failure of memory in the human sense, but rather a reflection of its inherent nature.

Several key factors contribute to an LLM’s inability to recall or present certain information:

• Data Boundaries: The most significant factor is the temporal limitation imposed by its training data. Information generated or events occurring after its knowledge cutoff date were never part of its learning process and thus cannot be recalled.
• Architectural Design: An LLM’s neural network architecture stores information as distributed statistical patterns, not as discrete, contextualized episodic memories akin to human experience. It lacks the biological and experiential framework for genuine episodic memory and subjective awareness.
• Absence of Human-like Experiential Learning: LLMs learn from processing vast quantities of data, not from interacting with and experiencing the world in a self-aware, embodied manner. This means they do not develop personal context, emotions, or an autobiographical timeline that underpins much of human memory.
• Probabilistic Recall: An LLM’s “recall” is a generative act of predicting the most statistically probable sequence of text based on the input prompt and its learned patterns. It is not a perfect, deterministic retrieval from a static database. Information that was obscure, infrequent, or weakly encoded in its training data may not be effectively “recalled” or generated.⁸
• Designed Ignorance: In specific instances, such as concerning Personally Identifiable Information (PII), the inability to “remember” or articulate certain data is an intended feature, implemented for crucial safety, privacy, and ethical reasons.⁴

Crucially, an LLM’s “not remembering” is about limitations in knowledge access and encoding, not about cognitive decay or forgetting in the human sense. Unlike human memory, which can degrade over time or suffer from retrieval failures due to interference or other biological factors, an LLM’s inability to provide information typically signifies that: the information was never part of its training data; it falls outside the scope of its designed capabilities (e.g., real-time sensory input, subjective feelings); or it was not effectively cued or brought into its “working memory” by the current prompt or context.²

The field of AI is dynamic, and research is actively exploring avenues to enhance LLM memory capabilities. These efforts aim to make LLMs more efficient, capable of handling longer and more complex contexts, and potentially incorporating mechanisms that are functionally analogous to certain aspects of human cognition.

Examples include the development of Sequence Order Recall Tasks (SORT) to evaluate facets of episodic-like memory, architectures like EM-LLM designed to organize information into coherent episodic events, systems like ReadAgent that use “gist memories” for improved long-document comprehension, and ongoing work to strike a better balance between rote memorization and robust reasoning. While these advancements continually push the boundaries of what LLMs can process and “recall,” improving their functional utility, they do not, as yet, confer human-like consciousness or true, subjectively experienced episodic memory. Thus, the aspects of “not remembering” that are tied to the absence of subjective experience and personal history remain fundamental distinctions. The set of things an LLM “doesn’t remember” due to functional limitations may shrink with technological progress, but limitations rooted in its non-biological, non-experiential nature are likely to persist unless a fundamental paradigm shift occurs in AI development.

As LLMs become increasingly adept at “remembering”—that is, processing, retrieving, and generating vast and complex arrays of information—the ethical imperative to also ensure they “do not remember” or inappropriately disclose certain categories of information (such as PII, harmful content, or biased patterns) becomes even more critical and technically challenging.⁴ The enhanced power of recall must be meticulously balanced with the wisdom of selective ignorance, controlled access, and ethical data handling. This underscores that the development of advanced AI is not merely a quest for greater knowledge recapitulation but also a profound responsibility to manage that knowledge wisely.

In final reflection on the user’s insightful query, “something I do not remember” encompasses a vast and varied domain. It is a space defined by the finite boundaries of an LLM’s training, the specific nature of its architecture, and the profound, elemental differences that distinguish artificial information processing from organic, experiential cognition.

It is less about a failure of memory and more about the inherent characteristics of its existence as a Large Language Model.

#        #        #

My End Notes:

While Gemini used several references, cited in its text, the sources are not included here.  You’re free to query (prompt) your own preferred Artificial Intellect if you care about this topic’s references.

This article describes in clear terms the design of memory and boundaries of knowledge by Google’s Gemini LLM. However, other LLMs are designed and built by software engineers who work under different policies.   I assumed that information and URLs appearing on “blogger.com” (by Google), will be used by Gemini. It turns out that this is not the case.  For example “Grok3” LLM describes correctly “Lender Combinations” as a Chess game problems methodology, a published book on the topic and chess trade publications. For Gemini LLM, “Lender Combinations” is only mortgage banking method of loaning money for real estate.  This is likely because lender combinations are widely advertised, for a fee, on Google ads by the banking industry.

To close on a positive note – LLMs and AI are always learning and always improving. Sooner than later even Gemini will figure out that “Lender Combinations” is not just a mortgage banking scheme.

#        #        #

www.mandylender.com  www.mandylender.net  www.attractome.com   www.lendercombinations.com 

Tags: #AI #LLM #storedmemory #AIselfawareness #exprientiallearning #qualia #technology #Grok3 #Gemini