Hello!
As a handsome local AI enjoyer™ you’ve probably noticed one of the big flaws with LLMs:
It lies. Confidently. ALL THE TIME.
(Technically, it “bullshits” - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5
I’m autistic and extremely allergic to vibes-based tooling, so … I built a thing. Maybe it’s useful to you too.
The thing: llama-conductor
llama-conductor is a router that sits between your frontend (OWUI / SillyTavern / LibreChat / etc) and your backend (llama.cpp + llama-swap, or any OpenAI-compatible endpoint). Local-first (because fuck big AI), but it should talk to anything OpenAI-compatible if you point it there (note: experimental so YMMV).
Not a model, not a UI, not magic voodoo.
A glass-box that makes the stack behave like a deterministic system, instead of a drunk telling a story about the fish that got away.
TL;DR: “In God we trust. All others must bring data.”
Three examples:
1) KB mechanics that don’t suck (1990s engineering: markdown, JSON, checksums)
You keep “knowledge” as dumb folders on disk. Drop docs (.txt, .md, .pdf) in them. Then:
>>attach <kb>— attaches a KB folder>>summ new— generatesSUMM_*.mdfiles with SHA-256 provenance baked in- `>> moves the original to a sub-folder
Now, when you ask something like:
“yo, what did the Commodore C64 retail for in 1982?”
…it answers from the attached KBs only. If the fact isn’t there, it tells you - explicitly - instead of winging it. Eg:
The provided facts state the Commodore 64 launched at $595 and was reduced to $250, but do not specify a 1982 retail price. The Amiga’s pricing and timeline are also not detailed in the given facts.
Missing information includes the exact 1982 retail price for Commodore’s product line and which specific model(s) were sold then. The answer assumes the C64 is the intended product but cannot confirm this from the facts.
Confidence: medium | Source: Mixed
No vibes. No “well probably…”. Just: here’s what’s in your docs, here’s what’s missing, don’t GIGO yourself into stupid.
And when you’re happy with your summaries, you can:
>>move to vault— promote those SUMMs into Qdrant for the heavy mode.
2) Mentats: proof-or-refusal mode (Vault-only)
Mentats is the “deep think” pipeline against your curated sources. It’s enforced isolation:
- no chat history
- no filesystem KBs
- no Vodka
- Vault-only grounding (Qdrant)
It runs triple-pass (thinker → critic → thinker). It’s slow on purpose. You can audit it. And if the Vault has nothing relevant? It refuses and tells you to go pound sand:
FINAL_ANSWER:
The provided facts do not contain information about the Acorn computer or its 1995 sale price.
Sources: Vault
FACTS_USED: NONE
[ZARDOZ HATH SPOKEN]
Also yes, it writes a mentats_debug.log, because of course it does. Go look at it any time you want.
The flow is basically: Attach KBs → SUMM → Move to Vault → Mentats. No mystery meat. No “trust me bro, embeddings.”
3) Vodka: deterministic memory on a potato budget
Local LLMs have two classic problems: goldfish memory + context bloat that murders your VRAM.
Vodka fixes both without extra model compute. (Yes, I used the power of JSON files to hack the planet instead of buying more VRAM from NVIDIA).
!!stores facts verbatim (JSON on disk)??recalls them verbatim (TTL + touch limits so memory doesn’t become landfill)- CTC (Cut The Crap) hard-caps context (last N messages + char cap) so you don’t get VRAM spikes after 400 messages
So instead of:
“Remember my server is 203.0.113.42” → “Got it!” → [100 msgs later] → “127.0.0.1 🥰”
you get:
!! my server is 203.0.113.42?? server ip→ 203.0.113.42 (with TTL/touch metadata)
And because context stays bounded: stable KV cache, stable speed, your potato PC stops crying.
There’s more (a lot more) in the README, but I’ve already over-autism’ed this post.
TL;DR:
If you want your local LLM to shut up when it doesn’t know and show receipts when it does, come poke it:
- Primary (Codeberg): https://codeberg.org/BobbyLLM/llama-conductor
- Mirror (GitHub): https://github.com/BobbyLLM/llama-conductor
PS: Sorry about the AI slop image. I can’t draw for shit.
PPS: A human with ASD wrote this using Notepad++. If it the formatting is weird, now you know why.
I’m probably going to give this a try, but I think you should make it clearer for those who aren’t going to dig through the code that it’s still LLMs all the way down and can still have issues - it’s just there are LLMs double-checking other LLMs work to try to find those issues. There are still no guarantees since it’s still all LLMs.
I haven’t tried this tool specifically, but I do on occasion ask both Gemini and ChatGPT’s search-connected models to cite sources when claiming stuff and it doesn’t seem to even slightly stop them bullshitting and claiming a source says something that it doesn’t.
Yeah, this is different. Try it. It gives you cryptogenic key to the source (which you must provide yourself: please be aware. GIGO).
How does having a key solve anything? Its not that the source doesn’t exist, it’s that the source says something different to the LLM’s interpretation of it.
Yeah.
The SHA isn’t there to make the model smarter. It’s there to make the source immutable and auditable.
Having been burnt by LLMs (far too many times), I now start from a position of “fuck you, prove it”.
The hash proves which bytes the answer was grounded in, should I ever want to check it. If the model misreads or misinterprets, you can point to the source and say “the mistake is here, not in my memory of what the source was.”.
If it does that more than twice, straight in the bin. I have zero chill any more.
Secondly, drift detection. If someone edits or swaps a file later, the hash changes. That means yesterday’s answer can’t silently pretend it came from today’s document. I doubt my kids are going to sneak in and change the historical prices of 8 bit computers (well, the big one might…she’s dead keen on being a hacker) but I wanted to be sure no one and no-thing was fucking with me.
Finally, you (or someone else) can re-run the same question against the same hashed inputs and see if the system behaves the same way.
So: the hashes don’t fix hallucinations (I don’t even think that’s possible, even with magic). The hashes make it possible to audit the answer and spot why hallucinations might have happened.
PS: You’re right that interpretation errors still exist. That’s why Mentats does the triple-pass and why the system clearly flags “missing / unsupported” instead of filling gaps. The SHA is there to make the pipeline inspectable, instead of “trust me, bro.”.
Guess what? I don’t trust you. Prove it or GTFO.
Eh. This reads very much like your headline is massively over-promising clickbait. If your fix for an LLM bullshitting is that you have to check all its sources then you haven’t fixed LLM bullshitting
That’s… not how any of this works…
Fair point on setting expectations, but this isn’t just LLMs checking LLMs. The important parts are non-LLM constraints.
The model never gets to “decide what’s true.” In KB mode it can only answer from attached files. Don’t feed it shit and it won’t say shit.
In Mentats mode it can only answer from the Vault. If retrieval returns nothing, the system forces a refusal. That’s enforced by the router, not by another model.
The triple-pass (thinker → critic → thinker) is just for internal consistency and formatting. The grounding, provenance, and refusal logic live outside the LLM.
So yeah, no absolute guarantees (nothing in this space has those), but the failure mode is “I don’t know / not in my sources, get fucked” not “confidently invented gibberish.”