Simon WillisonModify

2026-04-30 03:01:47

I just released LLM 0.32a0, an alpha release of my LLM Python library and CLI tool for accessing LLMs, with some consequential changes that I've been working towards for quite a while.

Previous versions of LLM modeled the world in terms of prompts and responses. Send the model a text prompt, get back a text response.

import llm

model = llm.get_model("gpt-5.5")
response = model.prompt("Capital of France?")
print(response.text())

This made sense when I started working on the library back in April 2023. A lot has changed since then!

LLM provides an abstraction over thousands of different models via its plugin system. The original abstraction - of text input that returns text output - was no longer able to represent everything I needed it to.

Over time LLM itself has grown attachments to handle image, audio, and video input, then schemas for outputting structured JSON, then tools for executing tool calls. Meanwhile LLMs kept evolving, adding reasoning support and the ability to return images and all kinds of other interesting capabilities.

LLM needs to evolve to better handle the diversity of input and output types that can be processed by today's frontier models.

The 0.32a0 alpha has two key changes: model inputs can be represented as a sequence of messages, and model responses can be composed of a stream of differently typed parts.

Prompts as a sequence of messages

LLMs accept input as text, but ever since ChatGPT demonstrated the value of a two-way conversational interface, the most common way to prompt them has been to treat that input as a sequence of conversational turns.

The first turn might look like this:

user: Capital of France?
assistant: 

(The model then gets to fill out the reply from the assistant.)

But each subsequent turn needs to replay the entire conversation up to that point, as a sort of screenplay:

user: Capital of France?
assistant: Paris
user: Germany?
assistant:

Most of the JSON APIs from the major vendors follow this pattern. Here's what the above looks like using the OpenAI chat completions API, which has been widely imitated by other providers:

curl https://api.openai.com/v1/chat/completions \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $OPENAI_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "gpt-5.5",
    "messages": [
      {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "Capital of France?"
      },
      {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Paris"
      },
      {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "Germany?"
      }
    ]
  }'

Prior to 0.32, LLM modeled these as conversations:

model = llm.get_model("gpt-5.5")

conversation = model.conversation()
r1 = conversation.prompt("Capital of France?")
print(r1.text())
# Outputs "Paris"

r2 = conversation.prompt("Germany?")
print(r2.text())
# Outputs "Berlin"

This worked if you were building a conversation with the model from scratch, but it didn't provide a way to feed in a previous conversation from the start. This made tasks like building an emulation of the OpenAI chat completions API much harder than they should have been.

The llm CLI tool worked around this through a custom mechanism for persisting and inflating conversations using SQLite, but that never became a stable part of the LLM API - and there are many places you might want to use the Python library without committing to SQLite as the storage layer.

The new alpha now supports this:

import llm
from llm import user, assistant

model = llm.get_model("gpt-5.5")

response = model.prompt(messages=[
    user("Capital of France?"),
    assistant("Paris"),
    user("Germany?"),
])
print(response.text())

The llm.user() and llm.assistant() functions are new builder functions designed to be used within that messages=[] array.

The previous prompt= option still works, but LLM upgrades it to a single-item messages array behind the scenes.

You can also now reply to a response, as an alternative to building a conversation:

response2 = response.reply("How about Hungary?")
print(response2) # Default __str__() calls .text()

Streaming parts

The other major new interface in the alpha concerns streaming results back from a prompt.

Previously, LLM supported streaming like this:

response = model.prompt("Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle")
for chunk in response:
    print(chunk, end="")

Or this async variant:

import asyncio
import llm

model = llm.get_async_model("gpt-5.5")
response = model.prompt("Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle")

async def run():
    async for chunk in response:
        print(chunk, end="", flush=True)

asyncio.run(run())

Many of today's models return mixed types of content. A prompt run against Claude might return reasoning output, then text, then a JSON request for a tool call, then more text content.

Some models can even execute tools on the server-side, for example OpenAI's code interpreter tool or Anthropic's web search. This means the results from the model can combine text, tool calls, tool outputs and other formats.

Multi-modal output models are starting to emerge too, which can return images or even snippets of audio intermixed into that streaming response.

The new LLM alpha models these as a stream of typed message parts. Here's what that looks like as a Python API consumer:

import asyncio
import llm

model = llm.get_model("gpt-5.5")
prompt = "invent 3 cool dogs, first talk about your motivations"

def describe_dog(name: str, bio: str) -> str:
    """Record the name and biography of a hypothetical dog."""
    return f"{name}: {bio}"

def sync_example():
    response = model.prompt(
        prompt,
        tools=[describe_dog],
    )
    for event in response.stream_events():
        if event.type == "text":
            print(event.chunk, end="", flush=True)
        elif event.type == "tool_call_name":
            print(f"\nTool call: {event.chunk}(", end="", flush=True)
        elif event.type == "tool_call_args":
            print(event.chunk, end="", flush=True)

async def async_example():
    model = llm.get_async_model("gpt-5.5")
    response = model.prompt(
        prompt,
        tools=[describe_dog],
    )
    async for event in response.astream_events():
        if event.type == "text":
            print(event.chunk, end="", flush=True)
        elif event.type == "tool_call_name":
            print(f"\nTool call: {event.chunk}(", end="", flush=True)
        elif event.type == "tool_call_args":
            print(event.chunk, end="", flush=True)

sync_example()
asyncio.run(async_example())

Sample output (from just the first sync example):

My motivation: create three memorable dogs with distinct “cool” styles—one cinematic, one adventurous, and one charmingly chaotic—so each feels like they could star in their own story.
Tool call: describe_dog({"name": "Nova Jetpaw", "bio": "A sleek silver-gray whippet who wears tiny aviator goggles and loves sprinting along moonlit beaches. Nova is fearless, elegant, and rumored to outrun drones just for fun."}
Tool call: describe_dog({"name": "Mochi Thunderbark", "bio": "A fluffy corgi with a dramatic black-and-gold bandana and the confidence of a rock star. Mochi is short, loud, loyal, and leads a neighborhood 'security patrol' made entirely of squirrels."}
Tool call: describe_dog({"name": "Atlas Snowfang", "bio": "A massive white husky with ice-blue eyes and a backpack full of trail snacks. Atlas is calm, heroic, and always knows the way home—even during blizzards, fog, or confusing camping trips."}

At the end of the response you can call response.execute_tool_calls() to actually run the functions that were requested, or send a response.reply() to have those tools called and their return values sent back to the model:

print(response.reply("Tell me about the dogs"))

This new mechanism for streaming different token types means the CLI tool can now display "thinking" text in a different color from the text in the final response. The thinking text goes to stderr so it won't affect results that are piped into other tools.

This example uses Claude Sonnet 4.6 (with an updated streaming event version of the llm-anthropic plugin) as Anthropic's models return their reasoning text as part of the response:

llm -m claude-sonnet-4.6 'Think about 3 cool dogs then describe them' \
  -o thinking_display 1

You can suppress the output of reasoning tokens using the new -R/--no-reasoning flag. Surprisingly that ended up being the only CLI-facing change in this release.

A mechanism for serializing and deserializing responses

As mentioned earlier, LLM has quite inflexible code at the moment for persisting conversations to SQLite. I've added a new mechanism in 0.32a0 that should provide Python API users a way to roll their own alternative:

serializable = response.to_dict()
# serializable is a JSON-style dictionary
# store it anywhere you like, then inflate it:
response = Response.from_dict(serializable)

The dictionary this returns is actually a TypedDict defined in the new llm/serialization.py module.

What's next?

I'm releasing this as an alpha so I can upgrade various plugins and exercise the new design in real world environments for a few days. I expect the stable 0.32 release will be very similar to this alpha, unless alpha testing reveals some design flaw in the way I've put this all together.

There's one remaining large task: I'd like to redesign the SQLite logging system to better capture the more finely grained details that are returned by this new abstraction.

Ideally I'd like to model this as a graph, to best support situations like an OpenAI-style chat completions API where the same conversations are constantly extended and then repeated with every prompt. I want to be able to store those without duplicating them in the database.

I'm undecided as to whether that should be a feature in 0.32 or I should hold it for 0.33.

Tags: projects, python, ai, annotated-release-notes, generative-ai, llms, llm

2026-04-29 06:02:53

Never talk about goblins, gremlins, raccoons, trolls, ogres, pigeons, or other animals or creatures unless it is absolutely and unambiguously relevant to the user's query.

— OpenAI Codex base_instructions, for GPT-5.5

Tags: openai, ai, llms, system-prompts, prompt-engineering, codex-cli, generative-ai, gpt

2026-04-28 21:25:29

Five months in, I think I've decided that I don't want to vibecode — I want professionally managed software companies to use AI coding assistance to make more/better/cheaper software products that they sell to me for money.

— Matthew Yglesias

Tags: agentic-engineering, vibe-coding, ai-assisted-programming, ai

2026-04-28 13:23:05

What's new in pip 26.1 - lockfiles and dependency cooldowns!

This version drops support for Python 3.9 - fair enough, since it's been EOL since October. macOS still ships with python3 as a default Python 3.9, so I tried out the new Python version against Python 3.14 like this:

uv python install 3.14
mkdir /tmp/experiment
cd /tmp/experiment
python3.14 -m venv venv
source venv/bin/activate
pip install -U pip
pip --version

This confirmed I had pip 26.1 - then I tried out the new lock files:

pip lock datasette llm

This installs Datasette and LLM and all of their dependencies and writes the whole lot to a 519 line pylock.toml file - here's the result.

The new release also supports dependency cooldowns, discussed here previously, via the new --uploaded-prior-to PXD option where X is a number of days. The format is P-number-of-days-D, following ISO duration format but only supporting days.

I shipped a new release of LLM, version 0.31, three days ago. Here's how to use the new --uploaded-prior-to P4D option to ask for a version that is at least 4 days old.

pip install llm --uploaded-prior-to P4D
venv/bin/llm --version

This gave me version 0.30.

Via Lobste.rs

Tags: packaging, pip, python, security, supply-chain

2026-04-28 10:47:42

Introducing talkie: a 13B vintage language model from 1930

talkie-1930-13b-base (53.1 GB) is a "13B language model trained on 260B tokens of historical pre-1931 English text".

talkie-1930-13b-it (26.6 GB) is a checkpoint "finetuned using a novel dataset of instruction-response pairs extracted from pre-1931 reference works", designed to power a chat interface. You can try that out here.

Both models are Apache 2.0 licensed. Since the training data for the base model is entirely out of copyright (the USA copyright cutoff date is currently January 1, 1931), I'm hoping they later decide to release the training data as well.

Update on that: Nick Levine on Twitter:

Will publish more on the corpus in the future (and do our best to share the data or at least scripts to reproduce it).

Their report suggests some fascinating research objectives for this class of model, including:

• How good are these models at predicting the future? "we calculated the surprisingness of short descriptions of historical events to a 13B model trained on pre-1931 text"
• Can these models invent things that are past their knowledge cutoffs? "As Demis Hassabis has asked, could a model trained up to 1911 independently discover General Relativity, as Einstein did in 1915?"
• Can they be taught to program? "Figure 3 (left-hand side) shows an early example of such a test, measuring how well models trained on pre-1931 text can, when given a few demonstration examples of Python programs, write new correct programs."

I have a long-running interest in what I call "vegan models" - LLMs that are trained entirely on licensed or out-of-copyright data. I think the base model here qualifies, but the chat model isn't entirely pure due to the reliance on non-vegan models to help with the fine-tuning - emphasis mine:

First, we generated instruction-response pairs from historical texts with regular structure, such as etiquette manuals, letter-writing manuals, cookbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and poetry and fable collections (see Figure 7), and fine-tuned our base model on them using a simple chat format.

Next, to improve instruction-following abilities, we generated synthetic prompts covering different types of tasks, such as summarizing documents, responding to direct information requests, and continuing multi-turn conversations coherently. We then ran online direct preference optimization on rollouts generated from these prompts, using Claude Sonnet 4.6 as a judge. [...]

Finally, we did another round of supervised fine-tuning, this time on rejection-sampled multi-turn synthetic chats between Claude Opus 4.6 and talkie, to smooth out persistent rough edges in its conversational abilities.

A major challenge in training talkie was avoiding accidental contamination, either from post-1931 text that snuck into the training corpus or from the fine-tuning assistance from modern LLMs introducing anachronistic knowledge to the chat model.

I recently wrote about Mr. Chatterbox, a similar vintage language model project which also had to turn to modern LLMs to create synthetic conversations to help train the chat model.

The talkie team aspire to eventually move beyond this limitation:

While we have tried to post-train talkie free from modern influence, reinforcement learning with AI feedback inevitably shapes talkie’s behavior anachronistically. (The 7B version of talkie emerged from RL speaking in listicles.) As we scale up, we hope to be able to use our vintage base models themselves as judges to enable a fully bootstrapped era-appropriate post-training pipeline.

I couldn't resist hitting the talkie demo with my classic test prompt:

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

It replied:

An SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle was generated in 1860. The pelican was represented as perched on the saddle, with its long bill pointed forward, and its legs astride the handles. The idea was suggested by the fact that pelicans are sometimes seen fishing on horseback, on the banks of the Rhine.

Via Hacker News

Tags: ai, generative-ai, local-llms, llms, training-data, ai-ethics, llm-release

2026-04-28 07:46:56

microsoft/VibeVoice

Microsoft released it on January 21st, 2026 but I hadn't tried it until today. Here's a one-liner to run it on a Mac with uv, mlx-audio (by Prince Canuma) and the 5.71GB mlx-community/VibeVoice-ASR-4bit MLX conversion of the 17.3GB VibeVoice-ASR model, in this case against a downloaded copy of my recent podcast appearance with Lenny Rachitsky:

uv run --with mlx-audio mlx_audio.stt.generate \
  --model mlx-community/VibeVoice-ASR-4bit \
  --audio lenny.mp3 --output-path lenny \
  --format json --verbose --max-tokens 32768

The tool reported back:

Processing time: 524.79 seconds
Prompt: 26615 tokens, 50.718 tokens-per-sec
Generation: 20248 tokens, 38.585 tokens-per-sec
Peak memory: 30.44 GB

So that's 8 minutes 45 seconds for an hour of audio (running on a 128GB M5 Max MacBook Pro).

I've tested it against .wav and .mp3 files and they both worked fine.

If you omit --max-tokens it defaults to 8192, which is enough for about 25 minutes of audio. I discovered that through trial-and-error and quadrupled it to guarantee I'd get the full hour.

That command reported using 30.44GB of RAM at peak, but in Activity Monitor I observed 61.5GB of usage during the prefill stage and around 18GB during the generating phase.

Here's the resulting JSON. The key structure looks like this:

{
  "text": "And an open question for me is how many other knowledge work fields are actually prone to these agent loops?",
  "start": 13.85,
  "end": 19.5,
  "duration": 5.65,
  "speaker_id": 0
},
{
  "text": "Now that we have this power, people almost underestimate what they can do with it.",
  "start": 19.5,
  "end": 22.78,
  "duration": 3.280000000000001,
  "speaker_id": 1
},
{
  "text": "Today, probably 95% of the code that I produce, I didn't type it myself. I write so much of my code on my phone. It's wild.",
  "start": 22.78,
  "end": 30.0,
  "duration": 7.219999999999999,
  "speaker_id": 0
}

Since that's an array of objects we can open it in Datasette Lite, making it easier to browse.

Amusingly that Datasette Lite view shows three speakers - it identified Lenny and me for the conversation, and then a separate Lenny for the voice he used for the additional intro and the sponsor reads!

VibeVoice can only handle up to an hour of audio, so running the above command transcribed just the first hour of the podcast. To transcribe more than that you'd need to split the audio, ideally with a minute or so of overlap so you can avoid errors from partially transcribed words at the split point. You'd also need to then line up the identified speaker IDs across the multiple segments.

Tags: microsoft, python, datasette-lite, uv, mlx, prince-canuma, speech-to-text