[HN Gopher] Show HN: Use Third Party LLM API in JetBrains AI Ass...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Use Third Party LLM API in JetBrains AI Assistant
Author : Stream
Score : 75 points
Date : 2025-05-03 11:52 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| yekanchi wrote:
| does not gpt4free [g4all] do the same?
| Stream wrote:
| The problem is that JetBrains AI Assistant only support Ollama
| and LM Studio as model provider for now.
| aghilmort wrote:
| 1. this is cool / innovative
|
| 2. had lots of fun with similar we should chain / tunnel this to
| this it can't be done easily projects
|
| 3. fond memories reverse engineering JNI 1.0 to let Java only
| devs use C libs, get C# 1.0 to pipe via C++ to call C serial port
| driver for early drone microcontroller etc
|
| all to say / nice work / keep building / like that it solves your
| very specific AI anywhere problem in JetBrains even tho it seems
| like wait where to even start! It can't be done! Like Microsoft
| once told me re: C# 1.0
| ulrikrasmussen wrote:
| I tried using the AI assistant when it came out but seemingly was
| too stupid to figure out how to use it correctly. I tried to get
| it to write single functions or short blocks of code for me, but
| it would always start rewriting the whole file from scratch which
| was way too slow.
|
| Has it gotten better since, or did I just do it wrong from the
| beginning?
| glzone1 wrote:
| The jetbrains ai assistant was truly terrible when it came out.
| They blocked the use of the major LLM's and had supposedly a
| better European (?) LLM for coding, but I could not get it to
| work in any reasonable way. Now though they do allow you to use
| the major LLMs I believe and so it's immediately much more
| useful. There is also Junie, which I'm not sure how that
| compares it's a bit confusing but also seems better.
| rickette wrote:
| It has gotten a lot better IMHO in the latest 2025 release.
| Ability to enable/disable per project. Ability to favor local
| models over online models (online as fallback), support for
| OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, etc. Beter integration overall.
| ta988 wrote:
| I have used Junie their new system quite a lot recently it is
| much much better. It solved problems that Claude code was
| struggling with (but couldn't solve some that Claude code did
| solve with max thinking).
|
| It is still slowish, but the quality is definitely getting
| there.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| I have started to use it recently, and I am finding it useful
| as a code assistant.
|
| 1) It has been doing a good job reviewing my code, and could
| suggest some interesting performance improvements in the past.
|
| 2) It is good to generate things such as simple REST endooints,
| that sort of thing. Saves you a bunch of typing, even if you
| have to do some finishing touches yourself.
|
| 3) I think it generally does a decent job writing tests as
| well.
|
| 4) Current models have gotten really good at helping me explore
| libraries I am not very familiar with.
|
| The AI hype may be very annoying, and I am skeptical that in
| the long run it makes financial sense, but it is a productivity
| boost once you get the hang of it.
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| I'm not a user, but I have accidentally hit cmd+/ and I believe
| that is what you're looking for.
|
| It pops up a little input inline, rather than a chat or
| autocomplete.
| roandepoan wrote:
| There's also https://github.com/xsharov/enchanted-ollama-
| openrouter-proxy
| omneity wrote:
| Congrats for shipping!
|
| Have you seen LiteLLM Gateway before? As a bonus it supports a
| lot of different providers.
|
| https://docs.litellm.ai/docs/simple_proxy
| Stream wrote:
| Yes. Because my original purpose is to use third party LLMs in
| JetBrains AI Assistant, it doesn't provide Ollama or LM Studio
| endpoints as required. So I decide to develop one on myself.
| bambax wrote:
| Neat!
|
| But instead of hitting each provider's API separately, managing
| their keys, etc., it may be easier to go through OpenRouter,
| which is a single endpoint, has hundreds of models, and doesn't
| add any cost on top of public prices from the providers.
| Lorean1 wrote:
| If they don't add any cost I wonder what exactly is their
| business model?
| joshstrange wrote:
| They charge you a service fee (5% + $0.35) when you reload
| credits. This is very well hidden and not publicly stated (or
| at least I couldn't find it would logging in and trying to
| purchase).
| bambax wrote:
| They say they buy in bulk and get better prices than those
| available to the general public... IDK if that's the whole
| story, but could be.
| joshstrange wrote:
| It adds 5% + $0.35 every time you reload, so it absolutely does
| add a cost on top of public prices.
| tecleandor wrote:
| What does 'reload' mean in this context? (haven't used
| OpenRouter)
| joshstrange wrote:
| You buy credits on OpenRouter, or rather you load money
| onto your account and then as you make API calls your
| account balance is deducted by the cost displayed on
| OpenRouter's website (market rates).
|
| So once money is loaded on your account you pay the same as
| if you used the LLM provider directly but you pay a premium
| to load money onto your account, it's effectively adding a
| 5% fee to the base LLM API prices (and $0.35/per reload,
| depending on reload amount this might be negligible but on
| a $10 reload it means you are effectively paying a 9% fee).
| nullchan wrote:
| I literally was working on something similar. Emphasis on `was`
| since you beat me to it! :D
| bionhoward wrote:
| One thing I thought was funny was remembering these AI services
| all have the customer noncompete clause and this morning
| realizing they can actually sue you (not just rug pull you,
| actually bankrupt you with legal fees) if you use em to develop
| competing stuff
|
| Does that imply using OpenAI/Anthropic/Gemini API/Grok/Copilot
| for anything but the most trivial jokish personal uses ought to
| be considered a serious breach of fiduciary duty because it
| exposes your business to potentially massive legal costs?
| ta988 wrote:
| Can you direct me to where you see that in the Jetbrains
| agreements? Same for the other services.
| NoelJacob wrote:
| Wouldn't an extension be more suitable that runs on Jetbrains
| boot?
| linotype wrote:
| JetBrains really needs to support alternatives fast. Cursor,
| CoPilot, etc all need much better integration. VS Code is
| becoming almost mandatory for companies that force the use of LLM
| tools.
| ivape wrote:
| Really? This stuff is mandatory for those who are dependent on
| it. Many people still just look at the code in a separate
| browser tab and make a meaningful decision of if they want to
| pull something in or not. Why even use an IDE is the better
| question. What exactly is an IDE for if the AI will search and
| determine where to add/remove code? I don't think Jetbrains
| needs to lose focus on their product to compete with products
| that are masquerading as an IDE but have no intention of
| fulfilling the role of an IDE. They want to re-invent it, so
| it's better they simply stay in their own lane as they will be
| cannibalized by their own genre as there are no rules in that
| wild-west. For example, why does my automatic code writing
| genie look like a fucking IDE? Is there a reason? Cursor and
| the like will have their own competition and they'll struggle
| to keep up with a blank screen that just magically outputs
| software with no visibility into the code. Then they'll be
| stuck trying to sell people why it's better to let magic be
| written inside of an IDE, both competing with new magic and old
| hard tools (like Jetbrains). Cursor is not the future, it's
| dead on arrival.
|
| Jetbrains and existing IDEs are much more focused for exactly
| what it is, manual code writing/inspection. How they integrate
| AI should be done meaningfully to improve the IDE experience.
| If they want to be in the business of reinventing code-writing,
| then you have to scrap the IDE altogether.
| kurtis_reed wrote:
| Huh?
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| That seems like a false dichotomy. AI doesn't decide what
| kind of code to write. That's still up to the human (for
| now). Jetbrains also has to have some kind of AI offering, if
| only because otherwise users will migrate to competitors that
| do.
|
| It's an interesting question whether we'll need an IDE at all
| in the future. I used to program in Vim with minimal help.
| Maybe one day I'll program in Vim with maximal help from an
| AI. It would be nice to say "find where authentication
| happens" and it pulls up all instances of auth code. But
| that's also another example of a feature that can go into an
| IDE: case sensitive search, regex search, natural language
| search. So I'm skeptical we won't be using IDEs in the
| future. And if all of this is a part of an IDE, then that's
| squarely in Jetbrains' wheelhouse.
| linotype wrote:
| Some companies are mandating the use of Cursor or other tools
| like it.
| KronisLV wrote:
| > JetBrains really needs to support alternatives fast.
|
| They do support offline models:
| https://www.jetbrains.com/help/ai-assistant/switching-to-off...
|
| I also used the Continue.dev plugin for a bit which worked
| nicely with Ollama but was buggy when it comes to the UI, their
| AI Assistant feels better in that regard:
| https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/22707-continue
|
| Sadly seems like their Junie tool doesn't support that yet,
| would be pretty cool to have that convenience instead of
| needing something like Aider or other tools for more complex
| multi-step edits: https://www.jetbrains.com/junie/
| christkv wrote:
| What's considered the best small local model for coding?
| Something that can run on an m1 max 32gb ram?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-03 23:01 UTC)