I'm dead serious. The assistant talking to the AI is open source. How else would you describe it? You guys are really doing everything in your power to miscredit this. I really don't understand the hostile attitude.
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.
So what should they call this to avoid getting hated on? People are saying this is "just a thin wrapper" but I don't think that's the case (and even if it was, what's the problem?). This is their architecture: https://github.com/khoj-ai/khoj/blob/master/docs/khoj_archit...
That's the problem of the English language, it doesn't have compound words.
A database connector is a connector to a database.
An AI personal assistant is a AI powered assistant that I can use to do tasks for me.
If it's an assistant help using an AI that's something completely different.
You're just making up arbitrary rules that you apply inconsistently. My language has compound words and it wouldn't make any difference in this case. "An open source AI assistant" refers to the assistant in the same way "an inexperienced lab assistant" refers to the assistant being inexperienced and not the lab.
> You're just making up arbitrary rules that you apply inconsistently. My language has…
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.
Given how many people made the same reading (even to the point of the same joke), I'd argue they're arbitrary rules applied largely consistently, except when some marketing droid shows up.
No, because the common usage of "database connector" has consistently taught me enough context to expect "a connector to a database," much like the common usage of "AI assistant" has consistently taught me enough context to know that I should expect "an AI that acts as an assistant."
This threads reminds of a repeated scene in The Office, where one man repeatedly calls himself the “assistant manager”, and is constantly corrected as “assistant to the manager.”
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.