Why we no longer use LangChain for building our AI agents

Post by jhoechtl » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 3:53 AM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #49

infecto wrote: post #33

LangChain itself blows my mind as one of the most useless libraries to exist. I hope this does not come off the wrong way but so many people told me they were using it so it was easy to move been models. I just did not understand it, these are simple API calls that felt like Web Dev 101 when starting a new product. Maybe its that so many new people were coming into the field using LLM but it surprised me as even what…

It was the first pass at solving the common problems when building with LLMs. People jumped on it because it was trendy and popular. But it quickly became obvious that LangChain would be better named LangSpaghetti. That’s nothing against the authors. What are the chances the first attempt at solving a problem is successful? They should be commended for shipping quickly and raising money on top of it to keep iterating…

Post by gavmor » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 4:02 AM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #38

infecto wrote: post #33

LangChain itself blows my mind as one of the most useless libraries to exist. I hope this does not come off the wrong way but so many people told me they were using it so it was easy to move been models. I just did not understand it, these are simple API calls that felt like Web Dev 101 when starting a new product. Maybe its that so many new people were coming into the field using LLM but it surprised me as even what…

Every time I approached LangChain, contrary to the attitude of my colleagues, I could never figure out what the point of it was other than to fetishize certain design patterns. Interacting with an LLM in a useful way requires literally none of what LangChain has to offer, yet for a time it was on its way to being the de facto way to do anything with LLMs. It reminds me a lot of the false promise of ORMs, which is tha…

Post by __loam » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 4:03 AM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #49

infecto wrote: post #33

LangChain itself blows my mind as one of the most useless libraries to exist. I hope this does not come off the wrong way but so many people told me they were using it so it was easy to move been models. I just did not understand it, these are simple API calls that felt like Web Dev 101 when starting a new product. Maybe its that so many new people were coming into the field using LLM but it surprised me as even what…

It was the first pass at solving the common problems when building with LLMs. People jumped on it because it was trendy and popular. But it quickly became obvious that LangChain would be better named LangSpaghetti. That’s nothing against the authors. What are the chances the first attempt at solving a problem is successful? They should be commended for shipping quickly and raising money on top of it to keep iterating…

Post by refulgentis » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 4:27 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #67

refulgentis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a consumer app that swaps between the 5 bigs and wholeheartedly agree, except, God help you if you're doing Gemini. I somewhat regret hacking it into the same concepts as everyone else. I should have built stronger separation boundaries with more general abstractions. It works fine, I haven't had any critical bugs / mistakes, but it's really nasty once you get to the actual JSON you'll send. Google's was 100%…

> Google's was 100% designed by a committee of people who had never seen anyone else's API Google made their API before the others had one, since they were the first with making these kind of language models. Its just that it has been an internal API before.

Post by jsemrau » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 4:45 AM UTC