André Curtis-Trudel

Diego F. Cuadros, Abdoul-Aziz Maiga, Helen Meskhidze et al.

Persistent memory is turning language-model-based agents from stateless participants in isolated interactions into state-bearing components of LLM-based multi-agent systems. As memory becomes durable, reloadable, and behavior-shaping across agents, sessions, or versions, a design question arises that is not captured by retrieval accuracy or access control alone: which candidate memories should become shared institutional state? This Viewpoint frames that problem as governed collaborative memory. We argue that memory governance functions as a selection regime, determining which memory variants persist, which remain private, and which are rejected, abstained from, or superseded. We distinguish ungoverned persistence, constitutional or hybrid selection, automatic metric-based selection, and human-ratified artificial selection, emphasizing that these regimes are not a ranking but a design choice over target properties. We then describe a layered architecture that separates agent-local memory, shared institutional memory, archive memory, and project-continuity memory, with provenance and version lineage making selection inspectable. Documented traces from one running LLM-based multi-agent ecosystem illustrate unmanaged false-memory persistence, ratified institutional memory, rejection and revision, identity-preserving expansion, and governance-as-learning. The contribution is a design agenda: persistent LLM-based multi-agent systems should evaluate memory not only for recall and performance, but also for provenance fidelity, selection traceability, epistemic quality, correction pathways, and role preservation.

Yuan-Sen Ting, André Curtis-Trudel, Siyu Yao

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming astronomical research, yet the scientific community has largely treated this transformation as an engineering challenge rather than an epistemological one. This perspective article argues that philosophy of science offers essential tools for navigating AI's integration into astronomy--conceptual clarity about what "understanding" means, critical examination of assumptions about data and discovery, and frameworks for evaluating AI's roles across different research contexts. Drawing on an interdisciplinary workshop convening astronomers, philosophers, and computer scientists, we identify several tensions. First, the narrative that AI will "derive fundamental physics" from data misconstrues contemporary astronomy as equation-derivation rather than the observation-driven enterprise it is. Second, scientific understanding involves more than prediction--it requires narrative construction, contextual judgment, and communicative achievement that current AI architectures struggle to provide. Third, because narrative and judgment matter, human peer review remains essential--yet AI-generated content flooding the literature threatens our capacity to identify genuine insight. Fourth, while AI excels at well-defined problem-solving, the ill-defined problem-finding that drives breakthroughs appears to require capacities beyond pattern recognition. Fifth, as AI accelerates what is feasible, pursuitworthiness criteria risk shifting toward what AI makes easy rather than what is genuinely important. We propose "pragmatic understanding" as a framework for integration--recognizing AI as a tool that extends human cognition while requiring new norms for validation and epistemic evaluation. Engaging with these questions now may help the community shape the transformation rather than merely react to it.