HACKER Q&A
📣 fliellerjulian

Mem0 stores memories, but doesn't learn user patterns


We're a YC W23 company building AI agents for engineering labs - our customers run similar analyses repeatedly, and the agent treated every session like a blank slate.

We looked at Mem0, Letta/MemGPT, and similar memory solutions. They all solve a different problem: storing facts from conversations — "user prefers Python," "user is vegetarian." That's key-value memory with semantic search. Useful, but not what we needed.

What we needed was something that learns user patterns implicitly from behavior over time. When a customer corrects a threshold from 85% to 80% three sessions in a row, the agent should just know that next time. When a team always re-runs with stricter filters, the system should pick up on that pattern. So we built an internal API around a simple idea: user corrections are the highest-signal data. Instead of ingesting chat messages and hoping an LLM extracts something, we capture structured events — what the agent produced, what the user changed, what they accepted. A background job periodically runs an LLM pass to extract patterns and builds a confidence-weighted preference profile per user/team/org.

Before each session, the agent fetches the profile and gets smarter over time. The gap as I see it:

Mem0 = memory storage + retrieval. Doesn't learn patterns.

Letta = self-editing agent memory. Closer, but no implicit learning from behavior.

Missing = a preference learning layer that watches how users interact with agents and builds an evolving model. Like a rec engine for agent personalization.

I built this for our domain but the approach is domain-agnostic. Curious if others are hitting the same wall with their agents. Happy to share the architecture, prompts, and confidence scoring approach in detail.


  👤 berkethebooss Accepted Answer ✓
for now we just use normal system memory the user can maintain himself - not the best solution but better than nothing.

👤 solarkraft
> user corrections are the highest-signal data

I can not understand how this hasn’t been capitalized on more yet! Companies with the data MUST be training on it as RLHF, right?

In general, the “chat history mining” sector seems to be way under-developed to me so far.

All the damn time I am annoyed I have to re-tell my LLM a piece of info I have already told it a few weeks ago - finding the chat takes too long and the full history may not be relevant, but the fact wasn’t interesting enough to manually add to memory.

With the right memory system, the LLM could just know!

Does anyone have other interesting examples of this principle being applied?


👤 solarkraft
Note that you posted an “Ask HN” (with it linking to this page) - do you want to show us something instead?