Hacker News

It's a mismatch with our intuition about how much effort things take.

If there's humans involved, "I took this data and made a really fancy interactive chart" means that you put a lot more work into it, and you can probably somewhat assume that this means some more effort was also put into the accuracy of the data.

But with the LLM it's not really very much more work to get the fancy chart. So the thing that was a signifier of effort is now misleading us into trusting data that got no extra effort.

(Humans have been exploiting this tendency to trust fancy graphics forever, of course.)

I suspect chain of thought while building the chart will improve the overall correctness of the answer

Already happened. :)

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisugly/comments/1mk5wdb/this_ch...

It's a usability / quality of life feature to me. Nothing to do with increasing perceived confidence. I guess it depends on how much you already (dis)trust LLMs.

I'm finding more and more often the limiting factor isn't the LLM, it's my intuition. This goes a way towards helping with that.

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: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mariamartin1728_claude-wrote-...

P.S. Credit to the poster, she posted a correction note when someone caught the issue: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mariamartin1728_correction-on...

A similar thing happened when Google started really pushing generating flowcharts as a use-case with Nano Banana. A slick presentation can distract people from the only thing that really matters - the accuracy of the underlying data.

This was my first thought as well, all this does is further remove the user from seeing the chat output and instead makes it appear as if the information is concretely reliable.

I mean is it really that shocking that you can have an LLM generate structured data and shove that into a visualizer? The concern is if is reliable, which we know it isnt.

I agree. Maybe next they'll add emotionally evocative music, with swelling orchestral bits when you reach the exciting climate of the slop.

> 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.

"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.

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’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.

Have you actually used their products? They are janky, full of bugs and barely work half the time.

They write 100% of their code with Claude. Some of their engineers apparently burn over 100k worth of tokens per month.

It’s not surprising they ship fast at all when the product is actually falling apart at the seams and they just vibe code everything.

They also pay... insane salaries, like double industry average. That coupled with an IPO on the horizon means they probably have their pick of engineers.

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

But you can Sign in with Google.

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.

Also if you try to copy-paste a prompt from Notes etc into the Claude chat, it gets added as an attachment, so you can't edit the prompt. If you do the four-finger shortcut to paste it as text, it mangles newlines etc.

Why are they so dumb about such basic UX for so long?

They clearly vibe code a lot (most? all?) of their stuff, and it shows. Elementary features are broken regularly and while I appreciate them trying new features, I'd appreciate it more if existing ones were reliable and promptly fixed if broken.

> 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.

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.

Right-click the page and inspect the source code?

Ok, asked it myself: Chart.js

New account spamming LM replies, nice

All the office js integrations are still pretty shitty

What if you've never seen a cake before?