Nearly a month ago, I decided to add Gemini support to Feeds Fun and did some research on top LLM frameworks — I didn't want to write my own bicycle.
As a result, I found an embarrassing bug (in my opinion, of course) in the integration with Gemini in LLamaIndex. Judging by the code, it is also present in Haystack and in the plugin for LangChain. And the root of the problem is in the Google SDK for Python.
When initializing a new client for Gemini, the framework code overwrites/replaces API keys in all clients created before. Because the API key, by default, is stored in a singleton.
It is death-like, if you have a multi-tenant application, and unnoticeable in all other cases. Multi-tenant means that your application works with multiple users.
For example, in my case, in Feeds Fun, a user can enter their API key to improve the quality of the service. Imagine what a funny situation could happen: a user entered an API key to process their news but spent tokens (paid for) for all service users.
I reported this bug only in LLamaIndex as a security issue, and there has been no reaction for 3 weeks. I'm too lazy to reproduce and report for Haystack and LangChain. So this is your chance to report a bug to a top repository. All the info will be below, reproducing is not difficult.
This error is notable for many reasons:
Ultimately, I gave up on these frameworks and implemented my own client over HTTP API.
My conclusion from this mess is: you can't trust the code under the hood of modern LLM frameworks. You need to double-check and proofread it. Just because they state that they are "production-ready" doesn't mean they are really production-ready.
Let me tell you more about the bug.
For her vacation, Yuliya decided to show me the beautiful German mountains and took me for a couple of days to Grainau — it's a piece of Bavaria that's almost like Switzerland. At least, it is similar to the pictures of Switzerland that I've seen :-D
In short, it's a lovely place with a measured pace of life. If you need to catch your breath, calm your nerves, and enjoy nature, then this is the place for you. But if you can't live without parties, you'll get bored quickly.
What's there:
This is briefly, and now in detail.
Nate Silver — the author of "The Signal and the Noise" — is widely known for his successful forecasts, such as the US elections. It is not surprising that the book became a bestseller.
As you might guess, the book is about forecasts. More precisely, it is about approaches to forecasting, complexities, errors, misconceptions, and so on.
As usual, I expected a more theoretical approach, in the spirit of Scale [ru], but the author chose a different path and presented his ideas through the analysis of practical cases: one case per chapter. Each chapter describes a significant task, such as weather forecasting, and provides several prisms for looking at building forecasts. This certainly makes the material more accessible, but personally, I would like more systematics and theory.
Because of the case studies approach, it isn't easy to make a brief summary of the book. It is possible, and it would even be interesting to try, but the amount of work is too large — the author did not intend to provide a coherent system or a short set of basic theses.
Therefore, I will review the book as a whole, provide an approximate list of prisms, and list some cool facts.
"Piranesi" is both a continuation of the magical stories of Susanna Clarke and an independent book.
The book has no direct connection with the world of English magic [ru] from "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell". If desired, one can find a connection and even say that the worlds are the same, only at different times: the events of "Piranesi" take place in the early 2000s. However, the author did not give any hints on this. Therefore, I consider the worlds to be different for now.
Susanna continues to persistently and effectively dig not even in the direction of animism as the basis of world perception but in the direction of extremely holistic view of the world, in contrast to the currently dominant reductionism.
The latter blows my mind. As an engineer, I'm an intuitive reductionist due to professional deformation. Reading "Jonathan Strange" and "Piranesi", I felt how Clarke, like Peter the Great, cuts a window in my brain to another picture of the world, a different world perception. And it's wonderful.
By the way, don't confuse holism with, say, an engineering view of the world, a-la systems engineering [ru] or even science. The latter is about decomposing reality into isolated parts with clear boundaries and synthesizing "pure" models of the world [ru], while in holism, the parts have no clear boundaries and penetrate each other.
But it is my interpretation, there are interpretations when holism is just an alternative name for a systems thinking/view — it's hard to find literature on this topic now, so it's hard for me to say where the truth is.
So, "Piranesi"
This is a translation of a post from 2020
This is a step-by-step guide to generating dungeons in Python. If you are not a programmer, you may be interested in reading how to design a dungeon [ru].
I spent a few evenings testing the idea of generating space bases.. The space base didn't work out, but the result looks like a good dungeon. Since I went from simple to complex and didn't use rocket science, I converted the code into a tutorial on generating dungeons in Python.
By the end of this tutorial, we will have a dungeon generator with the following features:
The entire code can be found on github.
There won't be any code in the post — all the approaches used can be easily described in words. At least, I think so.
Each development stage has a corresponding tag in the repository, containing the code at the end of the stage.
The aim of this tutorial is not only to teach how to generate dungeons but to demonstrate that seemingly complex tasks can be simple when properly broken down into subtasks.