4 ms·

How ironic given the amount of APIs that were locking down access in response to AI training! Though the general API lockdown was started long before that, and

How ironic given the amount of APIs that were locking down access in response to AI training! Though the general API lockdown was started long before that, and like you, I’m skeptical that this new wave of open access will last if the promise doesn’t live up to the hype.

TimTheTinker 1y ago
MCP is supposed to grant "agency" (whatever that means), not merely expose curated data and functionality. In practice, the distinction is little more than the difference between different HTTP verbs, but I think there is a real difference in what people are intending to enable when creating an MCP server vs. standard APIs.
- adregan 1y ago
  Might be another reflection of McLuhan‘s “the medium is the message” in that APIs are built with the intended interface in mind. To this point, GUIs; going forward, AI agents. While the intention rhymes, the meaning of these systems diverge.
notatoad 1y ago
i don't think it's ironic at all. the AI boom exposed the value of data. there's two inevitable consequences when the value of something goes up: the people who were previously giving it away for free start charging for it, and the people who weren't previously selling it at all start selling it. the APIs that used to be free and now aren't were just slightly ahead of the game, all these new MCP servers aren't going to be free either.
miki123211 1y ago
MCP seems to be about giving you access to your own data. Your Slack conversations, your Jira tickets, your calendar appointments. Those wouldn't go into AI training datasets anyway, locked down APIs or not. The APIs of old were about giving you programmatic access to publicly available information. Public tweets, public Reddit posts, that sort of thing. That's the kind of data AI companies want for training, and you aren't getting it through MCP.
- seunosewa 1y ago
  Interesting perspective because MCPs are safer when they give you access to your own content from trusted providers or local apps on your computer than when they give you access to public data which may have prompt injection booby traps.

TimTheTinker 1y ago

MCP is supposed to grant "agency" (whatever that means), not merely expose curated data and functionality. In practice, the distinction is little more than the difference between different HTTP verbs, but I think there is a real difference in what people are intending to enable when creating an MCP server vs. standard APIs.

adregan 1y ago
Might be another reflection of McLuhan‘s “the medium is the message” in that APIs are built with the intended interface in mind. To this point, GUIs; going forward, AI agents. While the intention rhymes, the meaning of these systems diverge.

notatoad 1y ago

i don't think it's ironic at all. the AI boom exposed the value of data. there's two inevitable consequences when the value of something goes up: the people who were previously giving it away for free start charging for it, and the people who weren't previously selling it at all start selling it. the APIs that used to be free and now aren't were just slightly ahead of the game, all these new MCP servers aren't going to be free either.

miki123211 1y ago

MCP seems to be about giving you access to your own data. Your Slack conversations, your Jira tickets, your calendar appointments. Those wouldn't go into AI training datasets anyway, locked down APIs or not. The APIs of old were about giving you programmatic access to publicly available information. Public tweets, public Reddit posts, that sort of thing. That's the kind of data AI companies want for training, and you aren't getting it through MCP.

seunosewa 1y ago
Interesting perspective because MCPs are safer when they give you access to your own content from trusted providers or local apps on your computer than when they give you access to public data which may have prompt injection booby traps.