4 ms·

Show HN: I wrote a browser AI assistant without requiring login

24 points by djyde 2y ago

djyde 2y ago
Hi hackers. I wrote an AI browser extension for chat with page. I know there are many existing tools like this. But every existed tools require me login before using it and I must use their AI models (which is the way they make money). So I write my own tools for it. The key features are: - No need to login, just use it - Use your own AI API key - Use your own custom prompt - Chat run entirely within the browser, without passing through any third-party servers
mayne 2y ago
It looks good
richin13 2y ago
Any plans to open source it?
- djyde 2y ago
  Sorry, no. I'm an indie developer so I wish I can make some money with it. It would be a fair price as I wrote on landing page, will less than $20/year. But I can share the tech stack I use: - WXT: the browser extension framework - Vercel AI SDK. Both SDK core and SDK UI. I wrote a bridge that I can proxy the api request to background script which compat with the SDK streaming protocol, so that I can use the SDK UI. - Next.js: for the landing page and the up coming cloud service (e.g. prompt sync) - Strapi: headless cms.
  - richin13 2y ago
    Fair enough. I asked because an extension like this has access to too much information which I don't like from a privacy stand point. Thanks for sharing though!
    - djyde 2y ago
      I understand your concern. I think "access to much information" means this extension require <all_url> host_permission, which I don't want to either but it must. Because custom AI provider's API base url is submit by user. If I want to call the API on background script, this base url must be listed on host_permissions. Otherwise it will cause a CORS problem. optional_host_permissions may fix this problem, but since the base url is set by user, it's not possible to use this workaround. Any suggestion?
      - tough 2y ago
        you could give paying customers access to the code to run themselves (not open source) if that works for you/your privacy-aware customer they can inspect the code/build it/ run their own version
        djyde 2y ago
        Actually, the nice thing about chrome extensions is that users can view all requests made by content_script and background script through devtool. This is much more intuitive than checking the code.
  - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    >will less than $20/year. I'd rather pay more, once, than another* subscription. *Of which, I have reduced to two: phone plan [€5.99pcm], and mullvad [€5.00pcm]. No more.
r6jg9oopm 2y ago
[flagged]
codenote 2y ago
It's a great product overall! However, as others have mentioned, if it can't be open source and requires granting strong permissions, I'm concerned about the security implications.
segmondy 2y ago
For those that don't know, Firefox already has a built in AI assistant that you can use with your own models or point to external models https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ai-chatbot https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ai-chatbot

24 points by djyde 2y ago

Hi hackers. I wrote an AI browser extension for chat with page. I know there are many existing tools like this. But every existed tools require me login before using it and I must use their AI models (which is the way they make money). So I write my own tools for it. The key features are: - No need to login, just use it - Use your own AI API key - Use your own custom prompt - Chat run entirely within the browser, without passing through any third-party servers

mayne 2y ago

It looks good

richin13 2y ago

Any plans to open source it?

djyde 2y ago
Sorry, no. I'm an indie developer so I wish I can make some money with it. It would be a fair price as I wrote on landing page, will less than $20/year. But I can share the tech stack I use: - WXT: the browser extension framework - Vercel AI SDK. Both SDK core and SDK UI. I wrote a bridge that I can proxy the api request to background script which compat with the SDK streaming protocol, so that I can use the SDK UI. - Next.js: for the landing page and the up coming cloud service (e.g. prompt sync) - Strapi: headless cms.
- richin13 2y ago
  Fair enough. I asked because an extension like this has access to too much information which I don't like from a privacy stand point. Thanks for sharing though!
  - djyde 2y ago
    I understand your concern. I think "access to much information" means this extension require <all_url> host_permission, which I don't want to either but it must. Because custom AI provider's API base url is submit by user. If I want to call the API on background script, this base url must be listed on host_permissions. Otherwise it will cause a CORS problem. optional_host_permissions may fix this problem, but since the base url is set by user, it's not possible to use this workaround. Any suggestion?
    - tough 2y ago
      you could give paying customers access to the code to run themselves (not open source) if that works for you/your privacy-aware customer they can inspect the code/build it/ run their own version
      - djyde 2y ago
        Actually, the nice thing about chrome extensions is that users can view all requests made by content_script and background script through devtool. This is much more intuitive than checking the code.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  >will less than $20/year. I'd rather pay more, once, than another* subscription. *Of which, I have reduced to two: phone plan [€5.99pcm], and mullvad [€5.00pcm]. No more.

r6jg9oopm 2y ago

[flagged]

codenote 2y ago

It's a great product overall! However, as others have mentioned, if it can't be open source and requires granting strong permissions, I'm concerned about the security implications.

segmondy 2y ago

For those that don't know, Firefox already has a built in AI assistant that you can use with your own models or point to external models https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ai-chatbot https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ai-chatbot