It's an open source project and I don't see why you need to be so obnoxious about it.
The Khoj website says, and I quote:
> Khoj's offline AI models allow you to find information using natural language queries. Search using terms that are similar to what you're looking for, rather than exact or fuzzy matches. Khoj search works offline. So if you self-host your data never leaves your machine and search works without internet.
Emphasis mine.
It seems somewhat disingenuous.
I get it, parts of it run offline, parts of it use the openai api… but that’s not what it says on the box.
Why is the project making a song and dance about self hosting and being open source when it’s just another openai app.
If it’s not just another openai wrapper, cut the openai part of it out and pitch it that way, sure.
…but as it stands, I’m pretty sceptical.
Lots of people are doing the “ai magic” tech demo stuff at the moment, but when you cut them off from the openai api the magic goes away and what’s left isn't very good or interesting.
Maybe this is different? …but it doesn’t look like it; and since they’re tied up with the openai api and you can’t use it without that, how would I even tell?
> Emphasis mine.
> It seems somewhat disingenuous.
I've been trying it. Khoj search does work offline. Khoj chat (they are literally seperate functions in the app) requires an openAI key and if you give it one, uses openAI.
That's like saying I invented a new form of transportation where you're feet never leave the ground but in actuality I'm just a travel agent sending you to the airport.
Really feels like people are nitpicking and hating on this project for no good reason. I feel sorry for the authors.
> So if you self-host your data never leaves your machine
Anyway, I definitely don't think this deserves to be described as "a simple interface for the OpenAI-API drenched in fake buzzwords boosted to the top of HN to scam investors" or "twitter get-rich-quick-guru level lousy and fake, and is clearly boosted to the top of HN".
Horrible reactions in this thread to open source software you can fork to use whatever you want. Really disappointing.
You really need to explain what you are hating on here.
The AI isn't open source and sending your data to a third party isn't really trustworthy personal.
Open source means that the source code which is developed for a piece of software is fully open (i.e, anyone can read, fork, modify the code) for what they are installing.
According to your definition, it would be really hard to do anything that is fully, end to end, open source. We've developed the code on Macs, hosted the code on GitHub, written plugins for Obsidian and GitHub, hosted the website on AWS. All of those are closed sourced software.
https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so...
That being said, we are planning to integrate an open source LLM soon. When we added chat, Open AI just had the best one, but the space is changing so quickly. We're both super enthusiastic about seeing all the open source tooling for this stuff evolve.
If I market "a totally creative-commons blockbuster Hollywood movie", but my actual product is just a creative-commons-licensed set of driving directions to some nearby movie theater where you can buy tickets to see the same copyrighted movies anyone else is offering, then _the fundamental essence_ of what I'm offering is not, in fact, creative-commons. I sold people on a _movie_ with that license, and then failed to deliver.
That's what you've done here.
To be clear, the fatal flaw is that your marketing is dishonest about what your product currently is, not that your product is something nobody wants. I'd recommend either making your marketing honest, or else making your product live up to what your marketing promises.
_Then_ you do the PR push on HN.
Yeah, nobody did open source before those things existed...
Because it literally says "open-source AI".
Seriously, this is such a misleading redefinition of a common phrase that it makes me suspicious of the whole project's trustworthiness. If they're playing shell games with "well, technically I didn't say that I meant this phrase the way it's most commonly used in this same industry", then what else are they redefining and misleading about?
I'd encourage you to look into how Siri and "hey Google" and even Cortana and Bixby all describe themselves: as "AI assistants". Nobody thinks "the thing that takes audio and throws it into an AI model is the assistant _to the_ AI". They think of the whole package as their AI assistant — that is, an assistant that is an AI.
That's how the phrase is most commonly used, and even if it were a new turn of phrase, parsing "adjective noun" out into "noun to the noun" is wildly unnatural.
I’m not sure what your language has, but you definitely hit the nail on the head with your inadvertent description of the English language: (seemingly) arbitrary rules applied inconsistently.
You’re absolutely correct that an inexperienced lab assistant does not refer to the lab.
The GP isn’t wrong either.
Open source AI assistant.
Open source assistant to the AI.