Litelm: LiteLLM Without the Bloat
32 points by kennethwolters 2 hours ago | 10 comments
khalic 2 hours ago
I strongly recommend the authors rewrite the readme by hand. It’s kind of a snif test for how much care someone out into this project.
replyVCFundedGenYer 3 minutes ago
Throwing my support for this. Do not use LLMs to write things humans should write.
replydevinpadron 50 minutes ago
Agree. The LLM'isms are offputting.
replyCentigonal 2 hours ago
This is a cool project, and the idea of using LLMs to selectively extract features from open source projects is an interesting concept.
replyThe only thing I take issue with is the phrase "LiteLLM Without the Bloat." A lot of the features that have been removed (like cost tracking, streaming, caching) are... kind of the core value proposition of LiteLLM for many of their users.
freshtake 22 minutes ago
First off, cool project! It's always great to see derivatives that question the efficiency of the established product.
replyI think the main thing the readme is missing is the core benefits. Reducing LOC and dependencies is cool, but it would be great to understand if this provides some additional benefits like lower latency or memory requirements.
LeBit 15 minutes ago
How does it compare to Bifrost?
replyjosephh 7 minutes ago
I'm always confused by LLM proxies that claim to support tool calling. Even for Bifrost that claims to be doing it, at least when I was checking it out, I found out that while it injects the list of MCP tools that's available on the proxy-side, it doesn't actually make the call on client's behalf, and clients get confused by it (response returns MCP call request whose tool doesn't exist on the client-side).
reply