Out of curiosity, why do you think the answer would be so simple and also completely untested?
For example, the researchers working hard on better text sampling techniques (i.e. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.00666), or on better constraint techniques (i.e. like this https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03081), or on actual negative prompting/CFG in LLMs (i.e. like this https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/issues/24536) are doing far FAR more to advance the state of AI than dozens of VC backed LLM companies operating today. They are all laboring in relative obscurity.
HN, and the NLP community have some serious blindspots with knowing how to exploit their own technology. At least someone at Andreessen Horowitz got a clue and gave some funding to Oogabooga - still waiting for Automatic1111 to get any funding.
It's just that, unlike these AIs, we're capable of online learning.
Something interesting that I heard from people trying to memorize things better is that memory “storage space” limits for people are essentially irrelevant. We’re limited by our learning and forgetting speeds. There’s no evidence of brains getting “full”.
Think of it like a giant warehouse of plants, with one employee. He can accept shipments (learning). He can take care of plants (remembering). Too long without care and they die (forgetting). The warehouse is big enough that it is not a limiting factor in how many plants he can keep alive. If it was 10x bigger it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.