What about non-Claude models?

My read of what happened is that the author spiked an an initial the implementation of 'fastmcp' on Nov 30 2025, 5 days later, the author relicensed it to MIT, and donated it to the python sdk (10 days after anthropic announced MCP):

https://github.com/PrefectHQ/fastmcp/pull/54

It was incorporated on Dec 21 2024, and hardened through the efforts of one of the python-sdk maintainers.

The author seemingly abandoned the github project shortly after donating it to the python-sdk and marked it as unmaintained, and it remained so for several months (there are roughly zero commits between jan-april):

https://github.com/PrefectHQ/fastmcp/issues/96

He also apparently has made almost no other contributions to the mcp python-sdk:

https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk/commits?a...

Many contributors to the python sdk continued to iterate on the mcp server implementation using the name fastmcp ( since it had been donated to the project ) resulting in growing interest:

https://trends.google.com/explore?q=fastmcp%20&date=2024-12-...

Then around April 2025, the author likely noticing the growing interest and stickyness of the name, decided to write a new version and start using the name fastmcp again.

https://github.com/PrefectHQ/fastmcp/graphs/contributors?fro...

The author clearly made an attempt to promote his effort:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mcp/comments/1np6dwg/fastmcp_20_is_...

This resulted in a lot of confusion by users, which persists to this day. I only looked into this last year, because i was one of those users who was suddenly confused regarding the provenance of what i was actually using vs what i thought i was using; and as i looked into it i was suddenly seeing lots of questionable reddit comments pop up in subreddits i was reading, all evangelizing fastmcp 2.0 and using language that was contributing to the confusion.

The author's interest in monetizing the fastmcp github repo is understandable, and he and others have clearly put alot of effort into iterating in his SaaS onramp, but the confusion arises simply because the author wanted to capitalize on the success of mcp and on the popularity of the fastmcp name, the initial growth and popularity of which was primarily driven by the effort and support of contributors to the mcp python sdk .

Effectively you are turning a somewhat arbitrary numeric “rating” task , into a multi label classification problem with well defined labels.

The natural evolution is to then train a BERT based classifier or similar on the set of labels and comments, which will get you a model judge that is super fast and can achieve good accuracy.

It is cherry picking information that is in the public domain, and then drawing spurious conclusions by purposefully excluding or dismissing other publicly available knowledge, and doing so with a tone of exasperated incredulity.

Clearing the table, scraping dirty plates, putting condiments back in the fridge, packing away uneaten food as left overs, rinsing the dishes, loading the dishwasher efficiently, then unloading the dishes and putting them all away in the arbitrary places the go, are all tasks to that cant be done by any robot that isn’t humanoid in nature in some way.

The amount of pen caps, dropped food, discarded clothes, school bags, shoes, partially assembled legos, couch cushions, books, and other random bulky items that end up on the floor of a house with young kids makes the idea of robotic floor cleaning being a solved problem laughable.

My assumption is that an Optimus home assistant will be an order of magnitude cheaper than manual labour, which means it will be accessible to people who can’t currently afford a cleaner/maid but whose lives would be improved by having help with the daily workload of life.

This brings up two thoughts, I wonder if the advent of robots will lead to more gender equality as women currently bear the a significantly higher percentage of the domestic work load.

Also, autonomous robots are going to make even harder to convince my kids to clean up after themselves :)

There are so many inaccuracies, gross simplifications, mischaracterisations, and strawman arguments, that it’s not really worthwhile to use it as a basis for discussion.

“Wibbels claims that developing countries are at a disadvantage in the global economy for two main reasons:

1. They rely heavily on foreign investment.

2. They depend on exporting a limited range of raw materials to earn foreign currency.

Because of this weak economic position, developing countries struggle to borrow money when needed. This makes it hard for them to boost their economies during economic downturns, unlike wealthier nations that can more easily borrow and spend to stimulate growth. “

I wonder what this means? Will OpenAI be investing research and engineering into creating models that are optimised to create ads that lead to high engagement? Is this a going to be a new revenu stream model for OpenAI?

Three suggestions:

1. If I try the demo on the landing page, and then sign up, I wanted it to automatically have the contents from my demo usage on the landing page copied into my newly created account.

2. I would like another option than an auto renewing subscription. If I could have loaded 5$ or 10$ that my usage would deduct from, instead of having to subscribe, I would have paid money right then and there, but I didn’t because I have too many damn subscriptions (alternative is to offer a non auto renew $10 one month trial).

3. iOS app please :)

I think in cases like postman, people don’t like when features they previously had used for free suddenly comes with a price tag; rather than innovate and create new value that is worth paying for, some companies are opting to take away features user previously had. Yes, they own/control the software and want to make money , which fine, but they created a dissatisfying user experience as they tried to coercively move users into their cloud offering, wether they wanted to or not, and regardless if it provided user value. After they did that, they shouldn’t be surprise a portion of their user base decide to ditch the product and complain about the experience. This is compounded by the fact that they leveraged the contributions of an open source community, and at the same time there are other options freely available that aren’t locked into a proprietary cloud login.

I’m guessing y’all are both being facetious :)