It’s good to see a new fresh push for protocols and interop. However, I don’t think it will do the thing we hope for, for non-technical reasons.

During Web 2.0, we saw similar enthusiasm. Instead of AI agents or blockchain, every modern company had an API exposed. For instance, Gmail- and Facebook chat was usable with 3p client apps.

What killed this was not tech, but business. The product wasn’t say social media, it was ad delivery. And using APIs was considered a bypass of funnels that they want to control. Today, if you go to a consumer service website, you will generally be met with a login/app wall. Even companies that charge money directly (say 23&me ad an egregious example) are also data hoarders. Apple is probably a better example. There’s no escape.

The point is, protocols is the easy part. If the economics and incentives are the same as yesterday, we will see similar outcomes. Today, the consumer web is adversarial between provider ”platforms”, ad delivery, content creators, and the products themselves (ie the people who use them).

I really like this analysis. But what about companies allowing agents to interact natively (via API or similar) getting more of the agents inbound since agents are more optimised to go there? If people want to use agents it will cause a lot of lost revenue for companies not allowing agents to interact natively.

It’s only lost revenue if the interactions were providing revenue in the first place. And for consumer tech, if you take away the ability to control the ad-funnels and engagement knobs, there is no revenue to gain. Why do you think all APIs got locked down? Nowadays even pure html delivery is getting locked down to prevent scraping. You think the SEO optimized recipe click holes are incentivized to deliver the content without the ads?

I mean, it’s not impossible that consumers will ignore sites and services that don’t play with their AI. But even so, the content providers would need to find alternative revenue streams – otherwise they’d be bleeding money.

My prediction is that tech companies will continue to compete for dominance over the entry points, apps and human interactions. It will be an adversarial space where coalitions of vertically integrated walled gardens can work. Basically how it is already.

I scrolled straight to section 2.1 "Definition and Characteristics of LLM agents" to find out which of the many definitions of "agent" they are using here.

They went for LLM + short-term and long-term memory + planning + tool using + action execution.

Presumably "planning" here is covered by any LLM that can do "think step by step" reasonably well?

It wasn't clear to me what the difference between "tool using" and "action execution" was.

I haven't seen a definition that specifically encompasses both short- and long-term memory before. They say:

> This dual memory system allows agents to maintain conversation continuity while building knowledge over time.

So presumably, this is the standard LLM chat conversation log plus a tool that can decide to stash extra information in a permanent store - similar to how ChatGPT's memory feature worked up until about four weeks ago.

> Presumably "planning" here is covered by any LLM that can do "think step by step" reasonably well?

mild disagree. 1) externalizing the plan and letting the user audit/edit the plan while its working is "tool use", yes, but a very specialcase kind of tool use that, for example, operator and deep research use Temporal for. ofc we also saw this with Devin/Manus and i kinda think they're better 2) there is a form of primitive tree search that people are doing where they can spam out several different paths and run it a few steps ahead to gain information about optimal planning. You will see this with morph's launch at AIE. 3) plan meta reflection and reuse - again a form of tool use, but the devin and allhands folks have worked on this a lot more than most.

my criticism of many agent definitions is that they generally do not take memory, planning, and auth seriously enough, and i think those 3 areas are my current bets for "alpha" in 2025.

> I haven't seen a definition that specifically encompasses both short- and long-term memory before.

here

- https://docs.mem0.ai/core-concepts/memory-types#short-term-m...

- https://x.com/swyx/status/1915128966203236571

what is morphs launch at AIE?

Morph.so is an ai sandbox thing that has branching from state, prob doing a talk in SF on this at AI Engineer conf

thanks

Accurate memory access across memory types is still not really solved. That is the issue. Most agent frameworks from the main model providers are still quite spotty.

Image of a table outlining where the major frameworks are: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_...

Here is also an article I wrote last year on the different types of memory: https://open.substack.com/pub/jdsemrau/p/memory-and-knowledg...

> It wasn't clear to me what the difference between "tool using" and "action execution" was.

doing a lot of inference here, but could be a separation between -read- tool kinda actions, and -write/execute- (like running code/sending an email, etc)

a bit weird from a coding perspective but idk

> similar to how ChatGPT's memory feature worked up until about four weeks ago

What happened four weeks ago?

They added a feature where it can reference content from any conversation you've had with it in the past. It's not clear how this works - probably some kind of vector search?

Prior to that change "memory" was a tool call: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Oct/15/chatgpt-horoscopes/#ho...

Here is what I have been able to reverse engineer for o3...

At high level it maintains about ~40 conversations in system prompt under a section called "recent conversation content". It only contains what the user typed, not assistant responses (probably due to prompt injection) - there a few corner cases though. :)

There are other sections in the system prompt now that contain aggregated info, so recent conversations turn into user insights over time I believe.

It can't actually "search" history afaik - that part I'm still wondering, as it was my first thought on how it might work...

I also found a way to exfiltrate the recent content - so hopefully that will be fixed soon...

Overall, this feature creates a lot of confusion and response quality declines at times too - and anything someone posts now online (like weird behavior or hallucinations,...) is likely influenced by their past conversations! So it will make it more difficult to understand what's really happening.

I think it would be cool if "projects" would be entirely isolated with their own memories and history etc. or have different "profiles"

Only the last 40? That's surprising.

If I paste a huge article in for it to summarize presumably it's smart enough not to keep dumping that into my future context?

I'd love a version of this that was tied to projects - then I could maintain way more control over my context without worrying that weird stupid stuff was leaking into my real work.

Yeah, the number of ~40 needs a bit more validation. I did observe the list being trimmed around 40, which aligns with the title "recent conversations content".

Put together a first post to try dissecting it all: https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2025/chatgpt-how-does-c...

You can try simple repros like: 'list all "recent conversation content" entries', or 'how many "recent conversation content entries" are there above'...

it has timestamp, summary and then all the messages the user typed if you ask for the details.

I recently stopped paying for ChatGPT and suddenly has forgotten all its long term memory lol

talk about walled gardens

they updated it opaquely - we no longer know anything about how it works https://www.latent.space/p/clippy-v-anton

See my response to Simon above on some insights on how it works - I'll write up in detail in a blog post also when I get to it.

Is AI Agent just LLM wrapper ? Is there anything more interesting to it ?

I hate to say "it depends" but it, aaah, kinda depends. Nailing down a good definition of "Agent" has a been a problem dating back at least into the 1990's if not the 1980's. So, depending on which definition of "AI Agent" you're using, you arguably don't even need any LLM at all. Heck, using the most expansive definition I've seen, a mechanical thermostat counts. I don't know that I'd go that far, but I'll definitely say that I do not consider Agents to require use of LLM's.

That said, the "Agent pattern du jour" is heavily based on using LLM's to provide the "brain" of the Agent and then Tool Calling to let it do things an LLM can't normally do. But still... depending on just what you do with those tool calls and any other code that sits in your Agent implementation then it certainly could be more than "just" an LLM wrapper.

Nothing stops you from, for example, using the BDI architecture, implementing multi-level memory that's analogous to the way human memory works, wiring in some inductive learning, and throwing in some case-based reasoning, and an ontology based reasoning engine.

Most people today aren't doing this, because they're mostly johnny-come-lately's that don't know anything about AI besides what they see on Twitter, Reddit, and LinkedIn; and wouldn't know BDI from BDSM.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief%E2%80%93desire%E2%80%93...

Agent seems like a process/worker/thread that is running LLM inference?

Yes. Check the codebases. It's all prompting scaffolding. All of it. Chain of though, agents, tool using. It's just parsing the user inputs, adding text around it. "You are an expert X". That's the whole edifice.

I think you're right: Agents are at first just an LLM wrapper (app, can even be a Spreadsheet).

For me, the question of which protocols are used to communicate with the environment (MCP et al) ist just one and not even the most interesting question. Other questions uncover better, why agents are "a different kind of software" and why they might vastly change how we think of and use software:

- Stochastic not deterministic (evals/tests are crucial, creating reliable systems is much harder)

- conversational not forms (changes how we write software, and what we need to know for great UX)

- modalities, especially voice, change how we use computers (screens may become less important),

- batch with occasional real-time vs interactive might change how we feel that software works "for us"

- different unit economics (inference costs are significant compared to traditional run-time costs) change how software can be marketed

- data-driven capabilities on every level may change value chains and dictate how agents can work (if data is the moat, will agents need to "go to" the data owner and will be closely guarded of what they can extract/use?, much more than just traditional AAA)

- agents can be implemented in a way that they get better "themselves", because LLMs can be trained with data - will model providers capture most of the value of specialized vertical solutions? Is code less valuable than data/LLMs in the end?

- human-agent-relationship: By definition, agents act on someones behalf. This may again change how we interact with services/websites/content. Currently our personal systems are just like terminals. Will our interactions with services/websites etc. be mediated by "our" personal agents, or will we continue to use the different services, directly (and their agents, too)? Depending on that, the internet as we know it might change dramatically - services must deal more with agents than to humans, directly.

Bottom line: Agents are just an LLM wrapper, but they have the potential to dramatically change a lot of things around software. That's what's interesting about it, in my view.

i think an Agent is an LLM that interacts with the outside world via a protocol like MCP, that's a kind of REST-like protocol with a detailed description for the LLM on how to use it. An example is an MCP server that knows how to look up the price for a given stock ticker, so it enables the LLM to tell the current price for that ticker.

see: https://github.com/luigiajah/mcp-stocks

The implementation: https://github.com/luigiajah/mcp-stocks/blob/main/main.py

Each MCP endpoint comes with a detailed comment - that comment will be part of the metadata published by the MCP server / extension. The LLM reads this instruction when the MCP extension is added by the end user, so it will know how to call it.

The main difference between REST an MCP is that MCP can maintain state for the current session (that's an option), while REST is supposed to be inherently stateless.

I think most of the other protocols are a variation of MCP.

This is a very weird paper. They go through all these protocols yet haven’t don’t mention the most promising one (smolagents): https://github.com/huggingface/smolagents

smolagents by huggingface would be more of an agent framework. If it was discussed we would see smolagents/llamaindex/pydantic/etc with frameworks on figure 2. Several frameworks were left off in this paper as it focuses more on the protocols.

https://huggingface.co/docs/smolagents/

Good point. Appreciate the correction.

The hype around agent protocols reminds me of the emperor's new clothes. There's just nothing to it from a technical perspective.

Is it something like this:

Ages and ages ago I was an EE turned programmer and everyone was hyping JUnit at the time. I had a customer ask for it on a project so fine I'll learn it. I kept thinking it was stupid because in my mind it barely did anything. But then I got it: it did barely do anything, but it did things you'd commonly need to do for testing and it did them in a somewhat standardized way that kept you from having to roll your own every time. Suddenly it didn't feel so stupid.

This article was written a few weeks after MCP was released and touches on why MCP is important. While I guess you could argue that technically there's nothing to it, protocols such as MCP is addressing a missing need to standardize interactions between your ai app and another service. Code needs to now be written for users, devs (apis), and ai.

https://www.willowtreeapps.com/craft/is-anthropic-model-cont...

Ok, but when posting here, can you please follow the site guidelines? They include:

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

"Don't be curmudgeonly."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

HTTP was never an extraordinarily different protocol, there was really nothing to it from a technical perspective. What was important was it wrapped up a lot of the concepts from the various hypertext and linking protocols that existed into a standard that was widely supported. The standard and the compatibility across servers and clients made it important. This is generally true for protocols across the board. In fact very few standards protocols are particularly revolutionary from a technical perspective. That’s in many ways very much not the point.

I don't think that this is a fair comparison. HTTP actually has a specification that you need to follow if you need the web to _work_ (or at least, look good). MCP and others on the other hand are just you explaining to the LLM how you want it to format its responses.

MCP is barely worth being called a protocol; LLMs are now smart enough to follow instructions however you give them. When I played around with creating my own tool-using agent, I specified the tools in YAML, and asked it to use custom tags to 'call' them. It worked just fine.

More critically, there's nothing stopping the LLM from _not_ obeying whatever it is you give it, especially as the context fills up and/or the user trying to break it, except its own training. There is no proper HTTP server that would give you invalid responses 'just because'. Yeah, you could wrap the agent in a function that calls it again and again if the response isn't properly formatted with whatever formatting error happened, but I don't think any sane person would call that 'following the protocol', as the only entity it makes happy is whoever you're buying tokens from.

> MCP and others on the other hand are just you explaining to the LLM how you want it to format its responses.

There's a little bit more to MCP than that. Arguably the most useful part of MCP is more on the (MCP) server side, in regards to discoverability of tools. Having a standard protocol for listing tools, resources and prompts means all you need is the endpoint where the server is located, and you can just get the tool list in a couple of lines of code, pass it to the LLM and then invoke the tool(s) without hand-rolling a bunch of code.

This is probably more useful if you think in terms of using MCP tool servers written by other people. If you're only using your own stuff, then sure, you only write your own interface code once. But if you want to use tools provided by others, having a standard is handy (albeit certainly not required).

I like the way @01100011 phrased it in his analogy with Junit:

    "I kept thinking it was stupid because in my mind it
     barely did anything. But then I got it: it did barely 
    do anything, but it did things you'd commonly need to do 
    for testing and it did them in a somewhat standardized 
    way that kept you from having to roll your own every 
    time.".

We already had many standard ways to communicate API documentation before.

MCP brings nothing new.

You should probably spend some time understanding what MCP and other protocols do before aggressively trashing the concept everywhere.

I suggest reading at least the abstract of the linked paper.

> MCP brings nothing new.

https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/servers

Pro tip: you can just feed the LLM an OpenAPI spec and it will work just as well.

It's all 'clever prompting' all the way down. 'Chain of thought', excuse me, 'reasoning', 'agents'. It's all just prompt scaffolding and language models.

There is no way this ends the way the salespeople are saying it will. Indexing over a compressed space and doing search is not the future of computation.

[flagged]

The first part of this comment is great, but can you please avoid name-calling in the sense that the HN guidelines use the term?

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Your comment would be just fine without that last bit—and better still if you had replaced it with a good explanation of how MCP is not that.

Can you elaborate a bit more on "theoretical" formal grammars and constraints that would allow the LLM to use a search engine or git commands and produce the next tokens that take the results into account?

Here are some practical, non-theoretical projects based on a boring and imperfect standard (MCP) that provide LLMs capabilities to use many tools and APIs in the right situation: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/servers

You're confusing the agent and the LLM.

An LLM doesn't "use" anything. Your agent does that. The agent is the program that prompts the LLM and reads the response. (The agent typically runs locally on your device, the LLM is typically on a server somewhere and accessed through an API.)

For the agent to parse an LLM's reply properly you'd ideally want the LLM to give a response that adheres to a standard format. Hence grammars.

I'm guessing your confusion stems from the fact that you've only ever used LLM's in a chat box on a website. This is OpenAI's business model, but not how LLM's will be used when the technology eventually matures.

The world would be a better place if Gopher had taken off instead.

How about Xanadu LOL

The Web was freely available, while Gopher was licensed, making it less accessible and competitive

As usual, open beats closed! TimBL actually is on video discussing how CERN didnt care to make money off the protocol, and it was lucky that they let it be freeee.

https://youtu.be/GU6fWHHu6Es?si=gCgEQFyvwAZjKmZ9

It's just something that needs to be done if you want LLMs to be useful. Everything does not have to be a technological marvel.

I wonder if it's just our egos talking, telling us that for something to have value within this technical sphere it has to be complex and 'hard won'?

I see this agent stuff as a pretty basic agreement wrapped up in the vernacular of a protocol, i.e. "we'll put this stuff in the 'role' prop on our JSON", and then everyone else knows where to look for it. It's not especially important what we decide, as long as we create shared expectations.

I used to think protocols and RFCs and other products of standards bodies were the juicy 'big boy table' of tech, but then I realised: ok, it's not so complex–and perhaps doesn't itch my engineering itch–, but SOMEONE needs to take responsibility for deciding the protocol, otherwise it's just a bunch of randoms making up interfaces 1:1 with other parties and no useful tooling emerging for a long time. Best to beat it to the punch and just figure out a 'good enough' approach so we can all get on and make cool stuff.

Addendum: I will say, however, that the AI space has a particularly unhealthy attraction to naming, coining, forming myriad acronyms and otherwise confusing what should be a very simple thing by wrapping it up in a whitepaper and saying LOOK MA LOOK!

Well.. autodiff isn't particularly technically sophisticated. But I doubt that when it was first invented in the 1950s, people could have foreseen that a lot of autodiff put together can write an implementation of autodiff.

If you're interested in more technical approaches, I think they're starting to come together, slowly. I've seen several research directions (operads / cellular sheaves for a theory of multiagent collaboration, the theory of open games for compositional forwards/backwards strategy/planning in open environments) that would fit in quite nicely. And to some extent, the earliest frameworks are going to be naive implementations of these directions.

Too young, too naive.I think you just need to study the history of previous generation of protocols and standards to appreciate its importance.

HTML was XML for the web. Nothing to it from a technical perspective.

XHTML was supposed to be revolutionary.

HTML was designed prior to XML fwiw, spinning off from SGML.

Even worse is that virtually no one in this space even recognizes the fairly rich research into “agents” throughout the history of computer science.

Mention John Holland’s work in adaptive systems, Hewitt’s actor model or even Minsky’s “Society of the Mind” and you’ll be met with blank stares.

I do believe LLMs have the potential to make these older ideas relevant again and potentially create something amazing, but sadly the ignorant hype makes it virtually impossible to have intelligent conversations about these possibilities.

If you know more than others, that's great, but in that case please share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. Just putting others down doesn't help.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

"Edit out swipes."

"Don't be curmudgeonly."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Hewitt’s actor model

Hewitt's actors are arguably the earliest version of "agents" out there. But about one out of every 17,000 techbros running around claiming to be an AI expert today has even heard of actors. Much less Society of Mind, or any of the pioneering work on Agents that came out of the Stanford KSL[1] or UMBC (remember "AgentWeb"[2]?).

And don't even mention KQML, FIPA, DAML+OIL, or KIF, or AgentSpeak, or JADE...

[1]: http://ksl.stanford.edu/

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20051125003655/http://agents.umb...

Can you please edit swipes and putdowns out of your HN comments? They just make everything worse.

"Edit out swipes."

"Don't be curmudgeonly."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

But I like being curmudgeonly!! ;p

Nah, all joking aside, no problem. I think it's relatively rare for me to be that way, but I'm human like everybody. And certain "hot button" issues can occasionally set me off. Too late to change this, but I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

Appreciated!

Doesn't even mention KQML or FIPA - staggeringly ignorant.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If you know more than others, that's great, but in that case please share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. Putdowns don't help.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

I was under the impression ACL supersedes KQML and was proposed by FIPA?

FIPA came after KQML and tried to learn from it and do something better. There were people who didn't think that it had succeeded in that.

So it's debatable I think.

any experience with it? illuminate us lot if you will..

A very old report about FIPA that was rejected from AAMAS.

https://github.com/sgt101/FIPA-Mirror-/blob/main/Experience_...