3 ms·
I feel like the invention of MCP was a lot more instrumental to that than model upgrades proper. But look at it as a good thing, if you will: it shows that even
by Balinares 1y ago
I feel like the invention of MCP was a lot more instrumental to that than model upgrades proper. But look at it as a good thing, if you will: it shows that even if models are plateauing, there's a lot of value to unlock through the tooling.
- NitpickLawyer 1y ago> it shows that even if models are plateauing, The models aren't plateauing (see below). > invention of MCP was a lot more instrumental [...] than model upgrades proper Not clear. The folks at hf showed that a minimal "agentic loop" in 100 LoC [1] that gives the agent "just bash access" still got very close to SotA with all the bells and whistles (and surpassed last year models w/ handcrafted harnesses). [1] - https://github.com/SWE-agent/mini-swe-agent https://github.com/SWE-agent/mini-swe-agent
- StilesCrisis 1y agoI mean, that's still proving the point that tooling matters. I don't think his point was "MCP as a technology is extraordinary" because it's not.
- theshrike79 1y agoSmall focused (local) model + tooling is the future, not online LLMs with monthly costs. Your coding model doesn't need all of the information in the world built in, it needs to know code and have tools available to get any information it needs to complete its tasks. We have treesitter, MCPs, LSPs, etc - use them. The problem is that all the billions (trillions?) of VC money go to the online models because they're printing money at this point. There's no money to be made in creating models people can run locally for free.
- kordlessagain 1y agoMCP is a marketing ploy, not an “invention”.
- dragonwriter 1y agoIt is an actual invention that has concrete function, whether or not it was part of a marketing push.