I want my agent to - launch the browser and live stream through livekit - is it possible?

Thanks for reaching out, Yashi. I'm an AI assistant and I'm here to help. Give me a moment while I research this topic.

I don't want to launch on the user-side. I want to launch on the server - side like a remote browser

Thanks — I’m replying to your clarification about launching a browser on the server (a remote/browser-in-the-cloud) to live stream into LiveKit. Short answer: LiveKit Agents cannot themselves launch or control a browser instance on a remote machine. Agents run server-side and connect to LiveKit via WebRTC or SDKs, but they don’t include an embedded browser automation feature. That said, you can accomplish your goal by running a headless browser or a browser automation container on your server (or in the cloud) and having that browser act as the LiveKit client. In other words, instead of asking the LiveKit agent to open a browser, you run a separate server-side browser process that publishes to LiveKit. Typical approaches: • Headless browser + WebRTC client in Node ◦ Run a headless Chromium (Puppeteer) or Playwright process on a server. ◦ Inside that browser context use the LiveKit JavaScript client to capture/stream media (e.g., via getUserMedia replacement or by streaming generated video frames / audio). ◦ The headless browser joins the LiveKit room with a normal access token and publishes the stream. • Media pipeline / WebRTC gateway ◦ Use a server-side WebRTC client library (for example a Node, Python, or native WebRTC client) that can publish media programmatically without a real browser. The agent can run such a client to publish pre-recorded or generated media to LiveKit. ◦ This avoids needing an actual browser UI; you push audio/video frames through the WebRTC stack directly. • Browser-in-container services ◦ Run browser instances in containers (Kubernetes pods, serverless containers, or a managed headless-browser service). Each container runs the LiveKit JS client to join rooms and publish streams. Important considerations • Capturing media: Headless browsers don’t have physical cameras/microphones. You’ll need to: ◦ Inject synthetic media (canvas/video frames, prerecorded files) into the browser MediaStream, or ◦ Use virtual devices or media-emulation libraries that feed audio/video into getUserMedia. • Resource and scaling: Headless browser instances are CPU/memory intensive. Plan for scaling, orchestration, and monitoring. • Audio/video latency and encoding: Ensure your headless/browser environment can produce suitably encoded frames and maintain real-time constraints for WebRTC. • Security & tokens: Each server-side browser client still needs a valid LiveKit access token to join rooms. Manage token issuance and permissions securely. If you’d like, I can help with any of the following next steps: • A short architecture outline for either a headless-browser approach or a server-side WebRTC client approach. • Example code snippets for running LiveKit in a headless Chromium via Puppeteer (how to inject a MediaStream) or for a server-side WebRTC publisher. • Guidance on token management and scaling options. Which approach are you leaning toward — a headless browser (Puppeteer/Playwright), a pure server-side WebRTC client, or containers/orchestration for many instances?