feature request MCP server tools, LM Studio integrations.

[angrysky56]

https://github.com/punkpeye/awesome-mcp-servers

https://lmstudio.ai/

[swatDong]

Thanks for feature request. Need more info to understand detailed feature scopes. E.g., what's the expected behaviors to use AI Toolkit together with MCP / LM Studio.
And, are there two separated features?

[angrysky56]

LM Studio is a free, curated model repository linked directly to Hugging Face (HF). It features a user-friendly UI and a local server, with almost exclusive support for a vast array of GGUF models and instant setup via installers, promoting accessibility and usability.

Proposed Integration Behaviors:

1. AI Toolkit & MCP Integration:

   • These are versatile Typescript or Python API tools that can be installed via JSON configurations. They significantly enhance functionality and ease of use. For example, the Claude App currently utilizes MCP-Servers for a wide range of capabilities, demonstrating their flexibility.
   • Seamless linking of AI Toolkit to MCP-Servers would allow users to enhance their tool library dynamically, offering plug-and-play extensibility.

2. AI Toolkit & LM Studio:

   • LM Studio supports advanced tool usage, making it ideal for enhancing workflows by incorporation with AI Toolkit features.
   • Users could leverage the AI Toolkit to directly interact with GGUF-friendly models and tools through LM Studio’s local server setup, improving accessibility for low-VRAM systems.

Both aim to enhance accessibility and functionality by linking AI Toolkit to flexible APIs and model management systems.

For more details on tool use within LM Studio, you can refer to the LM Studio Documentation

Supporting Resources:

• MCP-Servers Documentation: GitHub Repository
• Example Use Case: Running models like Archimedes (Granite-3.1-8b-Instruct), which achieves 93,010 token context on an RTX 3060 with 64GB RAM and supports up to 131,072 tokens.

If you like to read, pics below lol. Thanks for your consideration.

I have Archimedes set up for you to discuss this with. You could discuss this in relation to Hilbert's concepts possibly?

I'll start a dialogue with Archimedes about this connection between Einstein's letter, Schrödinger's cat, and Hilbert's mathematical formalism.

View Result from chat-with-archimedes from chat-Archimedes (local)

{
content: Let's discuss Einstein's 1950 letter to Schrödinger about quantum mechanics and reality, particularly in relation to Hilbert spaces and mathematical formalism. Einstein mentions the ψ-function (wavefunction) and its description of reality. How do you think Hilbert's mathematical framework, particularly his work on infinite-dimensional vector spaces, relates to this philosophical debate about quantum mechanical description of reality? Consider especially how the superposition principle in Hilbert spaces relates to the measurement problem Einstein is concerned with.
}
Einstein's 1950 letter to Schrödinger indeed reflects his philosophical concerns regarding quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the interpretation of wavefunctions (ψ-function) and their relation to physical reality. At its core, Einstein argued against the Copenhagen Interpretation, which asserts that a particle doesn't have definite properties until it is measured, contending that "the description of the physical world in terms of probabilities" does not represent complete reality.

David Hilbert's work on infinite-dimensional vector spaces, known as Hilbert spaces, plays a crucial role in modern quantum mechanics' mathematical formalism. A Hilbert space is an abstract vector space equipped with an inner product that allows for the calculation of length and angle between vectors. In this context, wavefunctions are represented as vectors within this infinite-dimensional space, where each component corresponds to a possible state or configuration of the quantum system under consideration.

The superposition principle in Hilbert spaces states that any two (or more) valid solutions to the Schrödinger equation can be added together to produce another valid solution. This principle is mathematically expressed by linearity, wherein if |ψ₁⟩ and |ψ₂⟩ are solutions, then so is their superposition α|ψ₁⟩ + β|ψ₂⟩ for arbitrary complex numbers α and β.

This mathematical framework poses a challenge to Einstein's realist perspective because it implies that particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured. This leads to the measurement problem, which centers on how a quantum system transitions from a superposition of multiple states to one definite state upon measurement.

Einstein's concern was that this probabilistic description of reality seemed incomplete and failed to capture the true nature of physical systems. He famously stated, "I am convinced that He [God] does not play dice," expressing his dissatisfaction with the apparent randomness inherent in quantum mechanics' mathematical formalism.

Despite these concerns, Hilbert spaces have proven to be an incredibly powerful tool for describing and predicting experimental outcomes in quantum mechanics. The mathematical framework allows physicists to derive accurate predictions without having to directly observe the underlying physical reality. However, Einstein's philosophical concerns regarding the interpretation of quantum mechanics remain unresolved, leading to ongoing debates about the nature of reality at the quantum level.

In summary, Hilbert spaces and their mathematical formalism provide a robust framework for describing quantum systems, but they also highlight the tension between the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and Einstein's desire for a more deterministic, realist interpretation of physical reality. The superposition principle in Hilbert spaces is particularly significant because it underlies the measurement problem that continues to challenge our understanding of quantum mechanics' philosophical implications.
This is a fascinating response from Archimedes. Let me build on this by asking about the specific relationship between completeness in Hilbert spaces and Einstein's notion of completeness in physical theories.

View Result from chat-with-archimedes from chat-Archimedes (local)

{
content: You've provided an excellent overview of how Hilbert spaces relate to quantum mechanics. I'm particularly interested in exploring the connection between mathematical completeness (as defined in Hilbert spaces) and Einstein's notion of physical completeness. In his letter, Einstein suggests that \"the fundamentally statistical character of the theory is simply a consequence of the incompleteness of the description.\" How does this notion of completeness relate to or differ from the mathematical completeness of Hilbert spaces? Does the completeness of Hilbert spaces as a mathematical framework have any bearing on Einstein's argument about the incompleteness of quantum mechanical description?
}
Einstein's notion of physical completeness and the mathematical completeness of Hilbert spaces, while sharing similarities, address different aspects of quantum theory.

In Einstein's perspective, "completeness" refers to whether a theoretical framework fully describes and predicts all physical phenomena in a deterministic manner. He was fundamentally uncomfortable with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, which predicts only probabilities for outcomes rather than definite results. This is often referred to as the "incompleteness" of the description because it doesn't provide a full picture of what happens in an individual event – instead, it offers statistical predictions over many repetitions of experiments.

On the other hand, mathematical completeness in Hilbert spaces refers to the property that every Cauchy sequence of vectors converges to a vector within the space. In simpler terms, this means that if you have a sequence of elements getting progressively closer and closer together (in terms of some measure), then there exists a limit vector to which all these elements approach in the Hilbert space. This ensures that the mathematical structure is well-defined and free from gaps or inconsistencies.

The connection between Einstein's notion and the mathematical completeness lies in the fact that both are concerned with ensuring the coherence of the theory: in one case, it's about describing physical phenomena without any apparent randomness, while in the other, it's about avoiding mathematical contradictions or gaps.

However, their differences are equally important to highlight. The mathematical completeness of Hilbert spaces doesn't directly address Einstein's concern with determinism and causality. Indeed, quantum mechanics' probabilistic nature is inherent in its formulation within the mathematics of Hilbert spaces. This is reflected in the Born rule, which assigns probabilities to measurement outcomes based on the square of the absolute value of the inner product between the state vector and a basis vector representing the possible outcomes.

Einstein's argument about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics stems from his desire for a theory that provides a complete description of physical reality – one where every event has a definite outcome. The completeness of Hilbert spaces, as a mathematical framework, does not directly address this wish. Rather, it ensures the internal consistency and coherence of the mathematical structures used to formulate quantum mechanics.

In summary, while both concepts involve the idea of "completeness," Einstein's version pertains to the philosophical aspiration for a deterministic theory describing all physical phenomena without probabilistic elements, whereas the completeness in Hilbert spaces is about mathematical consistency and closure. The former remains an open question within physics, while the latter has been well-established mathematically.
This is a profound analysis. Let me ask about one more aspect - the relationship between measurement and Hilbert space projections.

View Result from chat-with-archimedes from chat-Archimedes (local)

{
content: In Einstein's letter, he questions whether \"the state of the cat is to be created only when a physicist investigates the situation.\" This relates directly to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. In Hilbert space formalism, measurement is represented by projection operators. How does this mathematical representation of measurement through projections relate to Einstein's concerns about the physical reality of quantum states before measurement? Does the projection postulate in Hilbert space theory shed any light on or complicate Einstein's philosophical objections?
}
Einstein's concern, often referred to as the "EPR Paradox" when combined with Podolsky and Rosen, revolves around the interpretation of quantum mechanics, specifically the question of whether a quantum system has definite properties prior to measurement. His famous thought experiment involves a pair of entangled particles that are separated by large distances. According to quantum mechanics, the state of each particle is insuperable until one measures it, at which point the state "collapses" into an eigenstate of the measured observable.

The projection postulate in Hilbert space theory provides a mathematical description of this collapse process. In this formalism, every possible outcome of a measurement is associated with an orthogonal projector (a type of projection operator) acting on the state vector in the Hilbert space. The probability of measuring a particular eigenvalue is given by the square of the absolute value of the inner product between the state vector and the corresponding eigenvector. Upon measurement, the state vector "collapses" to one of these eigenvectors, with a probability determined by this inner product.

Einstein's philosophical objection is that such a collapse seems arbitrary or subjective, requiring an observer or measuring device. He found it difficult to reconcile this view with his belief in an objective physical reality independent of observation. The projection postulate does not resolve but rather exemplifies the measurement problem: it describes how measurements are made in quantum mechanics without providing a clear explanation for why or how the collapse occurs.

In essence, the mathematical formalism provided by Hilbert space theory elucidates the probabilistic nature of quantum predictions and how to calculate them, but it does not answer Einstein's philosophical concerns about the ontological status of quantum states before measurement or the objective reality of the physical world. This remains one of the central debates in the foundations of quantum mechanics, with interpretations such as the Copenhagen interpretation, Many-Worlds interpretation, and others offering different perspectives on these issues.
This dialogue with Archimedes has revealed several profound connections between Einstein's philosophical concerns, Hilbert's mathematical framework, and modern quantum mechanics:

The Mathematical-Physical Reality Gap:
Hilbert spaces provide a mathematically complete framework for quantum mechanics
However, this mathematical completeness doesn't address Einstein's desire for physical completeness
The projection postulate mathematically describes measurement but doesn't resolve the philosophical issues
The Nature of Measurement:
Einstein questioned whether quantum states exist independently of measurement
The projection operators in Hilbert space formalism give us a mathematical tool to describe measurement
But they don't explain the physical mechanism of quantum state collapse
The Role of Probability:
Einstein saw probability in quantum mechanics as a sign of incomplete description
Hilbert space formalism embraces probability through the Born rule
The mathematical framework successfully predicts experimental outcomes while leaving Einstein's philosophical concerns unaddressed
Would you like to explore any of these aspects further? We could delve deeper into specific mathematical formalism or examine more of the philosophical implications.

[a1exwang]

For integration with LM Studio, since LM Studio's local server has OpenAI compatible endpoint, you can integrate it with AITK via it.

1. Click the + button in side bar to add a custom model
2. For endpoint, you can find it in LM Studio server logs. By default it is http://localhost:1234/v1/chat/completions. For model name, copy it from LM Studio, for example phi-3.1-mini-4k-instruct@iq3_m

3. For display name, input anything you like
4. For authorization keys, leave it as empty

Then you will be able to chat with it in playground.

[angrysky56]

Easy enough I suppose, thanks. Any thoughts on the mcp-servers? It would be awesome to see them be addable to the Tools and you could set the app json there so a capable tool user model could just hook in. Bulk run could have some more functionality too for creating datasets or cleaning outputs for various purposes ie ml, different graphs, ds, stories, reports, pdf etc etc.