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.
I continue developing my news reader: feeds.fun. To gather information and people together, I created several resources where you can discuss the project and find useful information:
So far, there is no one and nothing there, but over time, there will definitely be news and people.
If you are interested in this project, join! I'll be glad to see you and will try to respond quickly to all questions.
I continue participating in World Builders school. For the last month, I've created a technical prototype of game mechanics for manipulating public opinion.
You play as the chief editor of a news agency, who sends journalists on quests and publishes articles based on the results of investigations focusing on themes that you want to promote.
The top video is in Russian, so I'll go through the main points below.
Recently I've conducted a survey about the preferences of strategy players.
In the previous post, we cleaned up the data, and in this one, we will try to find insights within it.
In this post you will find an interactive dashboard with a bunch of charts, where you can compare two samples of your choice. There are many samples — for every taste and color, so feel free to explore and share the patterns you find on Telegram and Discord.
But be careful with conclusions. There is little data, in some cases very little. For example, the difference between the sample sizes of male and female respondents is about tenfold => you should be very careful in interpreting the differences between them.
In general, do not take this post as a full-fledged study. I'm sure many analysts would have torn my hands off for such a thing. Then sewed them back and torn them off again :-D Use the post as an interface to the data, and make your own conclusions.
Recently I asked you to fill in a survey about strategy games.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to do this. It's time to share the results.
363 respondents filled in the survey. 304 answers remained after data normalization and cleaning.
There will be two posts: