As far as I can tell is these standards (MCP/MHS/etc) are just semi obvious tool inferfaces that Anthropic uses as training scenarios.
It’s actually really cool, and not just for AI. That should make it easy to automate some processes with simple scripts.<p>Nitpick: it’s annoying that they add Model to those acronyms, for what seems like a fairly universal software interface
<a href="https://xkcd.com/927/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/927/</a><p>To actually add something to the discussion though: I guess getting LLMs to control robots is cool, but would potentially have more severe consequences than pure software since it interacts more with the physical world
Sounds like PyLabRobot:<p><a href="https://docs.pylabrobot.org/stable/" rel="nofollow">https://docs.pylabrobot.org/stable/</a>
I don't want to be that guy but did they invent bluetooth for ai? Like what is MHS actually? I read it twice and still don't get it
In the context of lab hardware there’s a ton of proprietary software and barriers to automating things. I think this is less about how to communicate, and more guaranteeing that “yes, this piece of hardware can interface with an agent” and is meant to do so. Kind of like using MCP vs letting your agent make raw HTTP requests
More like MCP for robotics. IMO they are better off getting the robots to use existing human UIs than trying to get hardware manufacturers to play ball.
What is the difference of MHS to MCP when it comes to features?<p>The whole text reads like everything is just a gRPC call that could've also been implemented with an MCP based wrapper.
Oh I see, yeah I guess this assumes manufacturers will just adopt this standard universally. Clears things a bit!
That 2 trillion dollar valuation ain't gonna make itself.
It seems more like a basic instruction set, that will then be translated to something actionable for each different device. Seems like most of the work then will be in developing the drivers for whatever devices you want the LLM to access.