| ▲ | tolugenius 2 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||
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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | numpad0 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||
It's hard to make LLMs read the manual for an invented language and have them improvise on the spot(1-shot). An established language or a command set that can be included in the training set to be used off top of their head is a lot more reliable and efficient. The caveat is that actual utility of this particular command set isn't clear yet. Or how many LLM labs will find it worthwhile. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | storywatch 2 hours 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | tuvix 2 hours ago | parent | prev | 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | sheauwn 2 hours 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||