That is a very strongly worded headline, given that the paper in question collects zero data about biological brains, and is only studying the behavior of single-layer artificial neural networks in Matlab:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01382-9

https://github.com/neuroai/Go-CLS_v2/tree/main

That seems really basic given where we are these days. I am guessing this is chosen to make it easier to analyze?

That's just computational neuroscience, no biological brains, only computations on artificial networks of neurons.

Edited title could be: "Hypothesis: The usefulness of a..."

linear regression :-)

I'm (obviously) not sure if this is related, but I know my brain has its own ideas about utility: I can easily recall the names of all seven castaways, and many actor's names in general, but I have to write down the names of people I worked with for two years so I can recall them later.

And I can feel this messed-up sense of utility: even though I know in the abstract that real people's names are far more important, my brain experiences noticeable pleasure upon recalling pointless minutiae that it just doesn't for many more useful things. Hello, forty digits of pi, good-bye, python co-routines -- which I read about two days ago and now realize I need to read about again.

I'm in the same boat. I can recall faces and where I saw them extremely well, but boy o boy am I able to forget your name while you are saying it to me.

It is as if nonesense is more fun for the brain and therefore gets remembered better.

I have problem with both faces and names of occasionally meet people, which sucks. Or often met people who I haven't seen for years.

I have the same problem occasionally, and I think you’ll find that you’re not alone, and (probably, hopefully) not getting early on set dementia.

I have observed that it gets better the more often you call people by their name. I.e. practice…

>my brain experiences noticeable pleasure upon recalling pointless minutiae

Could be adhd "excitement driven" focus/memory...

IMHO one remembers the names of celebrities because the TV has hacked ones brain.

This seems to be the most concise summary of the finding in the article:

>the brain sorts its memories into different categories that are stored separately, with the neocortex used for reliable generalizations and the hippocampus for exception

Also notable:

>Each time an experience is recalled, there are changes in the connection weights of the network, causing memory elements to get more averaged out. It raises questions about the circumstances under which “eyewitness testimony [could] be protected from bias and influence from repeated onslaughts of queries.”

Eyewitness testimony has been under fire for a long time. IIRC, "flashbulb" memories are perceived to be more well-remembered by those who have them because of the associated emotions, but they're not actually more reliable.

Something that wasn't mentioned in the article, but which it made me wonder about, is conspiracy theories and other magical thinking. Could it be a mis-coding of an exception as something generalizable? That would point to a need for attempting to train people to be more skeptical about new findings.

I have a daily diary I've kept for 6 years. It's just bullet points but everyday I can see what I did 30 days ago and the same date every year. I think that's helped reinforce those memories.

That strengthening of memories ideas has lead me to think I should do the same for everything I learn. Just quick bullet points I'm reminded of later.

But I've never done it mostly because it would be too taxing. I often fill in what I did 3 days later not on the day and remembering what I learnt 3 days ago is even harder than remembering what I did.

I've meant to try and build a habit like making a quick note everytime I go to the toilet or have a drink but again, haven't managed it yet.

>That would point to a need for attempting to train people to be more skeptical about new findings

Ironically, many people who were skeptical of the new mrna vaccines were labelled as conspiracy theorists!

The article was interesting but it took me 20 seconds to parse the title as I thought it was referring to "Memory Guides" as a noun. Felt like https://xkcd.com/2793/.

On a more serious note, how might the brain distinguish between exceptional vs routine memories? Feel like there would be a lot of edge cases, e.g. is a yearly recurring event (like a holiday) routine? Is a monthly event routine? Where is the line drawn?