It says open source AI personal assistant.
The AI isn't open source and sending your data to a third party isn't really trustworthy personal.
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.