| ▲ | Previewing the Model Hardware Standard(anthropic.com) |
| 29 points by surprisetalk 2 hours ago | 12 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | mips_avatar an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| As far as I can tell is these standards (MCP/MHS/etc) are just semi obvious tool inferfaces that Anthropic uses as training scenarios. |
|
| ▲ | dgellow 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s actually really cool, and not just for AI. That should make it easy to automate some processes with simple scripts. Nitpick: it’s annoying that they add Model to those acronyms, for what seems like a fairly universal software interface |
|
| ▲ | jedbrooke an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://xkcd.com/927/ 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 |
|
| ▲ | automationwiz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sounds like PyLabRobot: https://docs.pylabrobot.org/stable/ |
|
| ▲ | tolugenius an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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 |
| |
| ▲ | tuvix an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 | |
| ▲ | storywatch an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | cookiengineer 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | What is the difference of MHS to MCP when it comes to features? The whole text reads like everything is just a gRPC call that could've also been implemented with an MCP based wrapper. | |
| ▲ | tolugenius an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh I see, yeah I guess this assumes manufacturers will just adopt this standard universally. Clears things a bit! | |
| ▲ | written-beyond an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | That 2 trillion dollar valuation ain't gonna make itself. |
| |
| ▲ | sheauwn an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | ctoth an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, it turns the hardware driver problem into a translation problem (translate the hardware manual/datasheet into this protocol.) Guess what's really good/quick at translating things? |
|
|
