I’m intermittently getting artifacts vs the new visuals api, depending on which version of the Claude app I use. iOS/iPadOS apps are not yet supporting the visualization API, and I don’t see an app-store update yet.

Same specs/prompt, but with Max plan.

Rendered it in the right pane, instead of inline. Dark theme. 2% of Daily limit.

Since the underlying tool seems to be named something like "widget," I found I can nudge it into this embedded interactive output instead of artifacts by saying, "show me a widget that..."

It wasn't quick but I still found it fast enough. In my case I could even download it as an html file: https://gist.github.com/karussell/289aeb621a71597babd6f97eb2...

edit: claude just confirmed the initial version has a bug and 104-117 are not visible

Likewise, it created a couple visualizations for me that weren't requested but were very useful. That's a nice surprise. My takeaway was essentially the same in that I'd take much longer to make something comparable. I'll take advantage of this quite a bit, I think. I spend a lot of time visualizing data

> I wonder what the underlying cause is

It responds with the statistically most probable text based on its training data, which happens to be different with the errors vs without. I suspect high-fidelity diagramming requires a different attention architecture from the common ones used in sentence-optimized models.

Today I asked Claude to create me a squidward looking out the window meme and it started generating HTML & CSS to draw squidward in a style best described as "4 year old preschooler". Not quite it yet.

I think the problem should be defined as "why does it not loop back the errors from the first attempt so it can fix it on the second attempt" rather than why it fails to produce a fully correct implementation on the first pass.

This is one of the issues I’ve attempted to tackle with the Mermaid Studio plugin for IntelliJ.

It provides both syntax guides and syntax/semantic analysis as MCP Tools, so you can have an agent iteratively refine diagrams with good context for patterns like multi-line text and comments (LLMs love end-of-line comments, but Mermaid.js often doesn’t).

"Prompt Repetition Improves Non-Reasoning LLMs " - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.14982

What instance of ChatGPT are you doing that with? (Reasoning?)

Mermaid is really bad about cutting off text after spaces, so you have to insert <br>s everywhere. I’m guessing this is getting rendered instead of escaped by your interface. Or just lost in translation at the tokenizer.

Its a large leap from “we made a config driven diagram tool and trained an llm on that config” to “all apps will disappear”. If you’re predicting such grand claims please be more precise than “AI” which is a term we cant define.

> but hasn't ChatGPT had capability to create graphs and interact with data for a while?

It's pretty bad (for me). I have to use extremely prescriptive language to tell ChatGPT what to create. Even down to the colours in the chart, because otherwise it puts black font on black background (for example). Then I have to specifically tell it to put it in a canvas, and make it interactive, and make it executable in the canvas. Then if I'm lucky I have to hit a "preview" button in the top right and hope it works (it doesn't). I could write several paragraphs telling it to do something like what Claude just demo'd and it wouldn't come close. I'm trying Claude now for financial insights and it's effortless with beautiful UX.

For posterity, Gemini is pretty good with these interactive canvases. Not nearly as good, but FAR better than ChatGPT.

All the office js integrations are still pretty shitty

Right-click the page and inspect the source code?

Ok, asked it myself: Chart.js

It is not limited to graphics, better packaged products, better dressed / good looking well spoken person and so on. Celebrity endorsements depend on this thesis.

There has always been a bias towards form over function.

> A recent LinkedIn post that I came across as an example of people trusting (or learning to trust) AI too much while not realizing that it can make up numbers too

Honestly, people make them up just as much or generate equally incorrect graphs.

It's about time our trust into random visualizations is destroyed, without the actual formulas and data behind being exposed.

As a slightly different tack, I’ve been using Copilot to generate flowcharts from some of the fiendishly complex (and badly written) standard operating procedures we have at work.

People find them quite easy to check - easier than the raw document. My angle with teams is use these to check your processes. If the flow is wrong it’s either because the LLM has screwed up, or because the policy is wrong/badly written. It’s usually the latter. It’s a good way to fix SOPs

The further they can get people from the reality of `This just spits out whatever it thinks the next token will be` the more they can push the agenda.

Its' a reasonable concern. Often it can be mitigated by prompting in a manner that invokes research and verification instead of defaulting to a corpus.

Passive questions generate passive responses.

I think to the extent they are making a speed v quality tradeoff, I think they are making the right call. 10x speed over quality any day for me. Reminds me of:

"If brute force doesn't work, you aren't using enough of it." - Isaac Arthur

The Claude Code TUI app is pretty solid. I use it heavily and I get great results from it. But with the mobile app, Claude Code remote is basically unusable (weird disconnect bugs) and Claude Code cloud has issues as well (UI hides approval confirmations; must reconnect to see them). So yeah, I imagine what you're saying is true. There are at least some major gaps in their QA process. It's ironically a pretty convincing case to keep humans in the loop. It's honestly shocking to me that those features were actually shipped in their current state. You run into the problems immediately.

I don't find criticism like this particularly compelling. Most products (written by humans) have the same failings. The few that aren't are exceptions to the rule or develop very very slowly and carefully.

Their interviews are actually very much focused on how fast you can code something that works.

You have 23 year olds earning $2mn/year, at least it isn't in HFT though!

Trouble is, vibe coding refinements and bug fixes works well but probably isn't a good track to promotions at Anthropic (or virtually any other company.)

> you still can't Sign in with Apple on the website.

Apple forces developers to offer Sign in with Apple on iOS devices if any other sign in service is used. Apple can't force them to do it on non-Apple platforms.

> If you signed up with your Apple on the iOS Claude app, to access your account on the computer, you have to open the passwords app and copy your random email address and paste it into the Claude website login.

Isn't this basically Apple's fault? When you signed up, Apple provided a fake email address in leu of your real one. This is great for privacy but means the service has the wrong email.

I'm sure they didn't want to provide an Apple sign in option at all, but it's required by App Store rules.

Add to the list backtick handling. If you start a backtick block on the claude web chat, you cannot leave it with the keyboard. You are now stuck between the backticks. It is as if they wanted to reproduce Slack misery.