Whilst i'm a little ashamed to share this, it does seem relevant. I’ve been using canvas for a while and have found it valuable for my needs.
Due to medical reasons, I’m on daily medications that heavily impact my cognitive abilities. This is combined with chronic pain, which affects every aspect of my life. Thinking, energy, stress etc. This has made everything harder. In fact it was suspected/suggested at one point, that I would never return to the workforce, though luckily this did not come to pass.
While I still retain my knowledge and can learn new skills, brain fog and exhaustion from my physical symptoms have made it difficult to communicate as effectively as I once did, which is particularly frustrating since communication was prior to these issues, my biggest strength. Now, I often struggle to express my ideas in a clear, digestible manner. It's very difficult to gather all my thoughts in the one place coherently for complex topics.
To assist with this, I use ChatGPT with Canvas as I guess a structured editing tool. I input my content and research, organise it to the best of my ability, and ask for feedback to refine the presentation. Clarifying structure, reducing redundancy, and improving flow. I don’t ask or let it insert data about the topic itself, I ask only that it modify how my data is communicated.
It’s a bittersweet solution, but I would say that it's helped me remain employed, which is important, because I have a lot of ongoing medical costs.
Regardless of all the internal drama, you've gotta hand it to their product team - they know how to ship. Personally I find their canvas tool best in class and some of these new features seem absolutely awesome. WASM python? This opens up so many possibilities and it seems likely they're building towards Bolt.new competitor.
On that vein, it seems like every time OpenAI launches something it becomes table stakes for all the other players. I have no idea how Mixtral or any of the smaller companies will compete long term.
This could be tricky for them, because just as OpenAI has smaller competitors, it also has bigger ones.
If Google/Microsoft adds these features to Docs/Word— why would you use Canvas to write documents instead of the proven office software you and everyone you work with already uses? The biggest differentiator for OpenAI becomes again in this case the quality of the AI.
EDIT: on this note, Apple's approach of commoditizing AI writing tools to the OS-level is also interesting. If AI writing tools are available on every text-box, there's no new product in building a new AI-powered text-editor.
I don't think they do know how to ship. Reaching this feature is at the discretion of the model and how it prefers to answer the question. If I want to use canvas for a coding-brainstorming session and the model doesn't think the prompt is rigid enough to invite it as a use case; I'm SOL.
although these things are impressive at writing hello world in a bunch of ways, I've really found them pretty useless inside any sufficiently complex codebase. Am I just incompetently using them?
Canvas (and Claude Artifacts) aren't things you use inside a large codebase, they're more for one-off tools that you may want to run, without the hassle of setting up a stack for each, copying code between the LLM and your local editor etc.
Think "here's a schema for some internal API, write me a tool that lets me put in a product ID and see the number of purchases, chargebacks and returns for that product over time, on graphs, also provide sortable by-country tables for these stats".
With artifacts, software goes from something you make once and use for a long time, to something you make at need, to do exactly what you need and no more, and then immediately throw away once it has served its purpose.
Yeah, I think this is a shift that will be very interesting when commercialized. I already use chatGPT to write odd plugins for wordpress and programs for image and text manipulation. Now I can get an applet to do almost anything simple after an hour of messing around.
Not at all incompetence, it's just a very open ended UI for a tool that is best used for specific use cases. It can be tempting to try to get it to solve very broad problems since the UI lets you do that, but where it excels is when you use it to save time by constraining it to do the grunt work for you.
Don't ask it how to solve a problem for you, instead write out the solution in plain English, provide an API for it to fill in, and let it write out the solution with unit tests.
This guy [https://x.com/PrajwalTomar_] has been exploring workflows that involve using ChatGPT to assist in creating a Product Requirement Document (PRD), then using V0 by Vercel for mockups and bringing it all together using Cursor, maintaining continuity with markdown documents (.md) of the PRD and relevant database schemas etc inside the project to maintain continuity.
Using the front end of these websites to work in your complex codebase is very challenging. I use the chatbots for higher level questions about libraries and integrations, not for specific implementation details in my codebase. But without a data agreement in place, you shouldn't (or maybe can't) paste in code, and even if you could, it's an inferior way of providing context in comparison to better tools.
However, I do use copilot+vscode with claude 3.5 and the "Edit with Copilot feature" where it takes my open files, plus any other context I want to give it, to drive changes to my files, has been surprisingly good. It's not really a time saver in that the amount of time I spend verifying and fixing or enhancing the result isn't really faster than me just writing it myself, but I still find benefits for brainstorming, quickly iterating on alternate ideas and smaller refactors, and overcoming the "get started" hesitation on a seemingly complex change. I'm to the point where it can absolutely add tests to files using my existing patterns that are well done and rarely need feedback from me. I have been surprised to the see the progress because for most of the history of LLM I didn't find it useful.
It also helps that I work in a nodejs/react/etc codebase where the models have a ton of information and examples to work with.
> But without a data agreement in place, you shouldn't (or maybe can't) paste in code
There's a checkbox you can toggle so that Openai doesn't use your code to train their models.
And I find the "chatbot" experience different and better than aider/copilot. It forces me to refocus on the really useful interfaces instead of just sending everything, and makes it better to verify everything instead of just accepting a bunch of changes that might even be correct, but not what I exactly want. For me, the time spent verifying is actually a bonus, because I read faster than I can type. I think of it as a peer programmer who just happens to be able to type much, much faster and doesn't mind writing unit tests or rewriting the same thing over and over.
The problem with reading vs writing is building "true understanding". If you are reading code at a high level and building a perfect mental model and reading every bit of code, then you're doing it right. But many folks see finished code and get "LGTM brain" and don't necessarily fully think out every command on every line, leading to poor understanding of code. This is a huge drawback in LLM-assisted coding. Folks re-read code they "wrote" and have no memory of it at all.
In the edit experience I am using, the LLM provides a git style changelog where I can easily compare before/after with a really detailed diff. I find that much more useful than giant "blobs" of code where minor differences crop up that I don't notice.
The other massive drawback to the out-of-codebase chatbot experience (and the Edit With Copilot experience IS a chatbot, it's just integrated into the editor, changes files with diffs, and has a UI for managing file context) is context. I can effortlessly load all my open files into the LLM context with 1 click. The out-of-editor chatbox requires either a totally custom LLM with various layers to handle your codebase context, or you have to manually paste in a lot of context. It's nonsense to waste time pasting proprietary code into OpenAI (with no business agreement other than a privacy policy and a checkbox) when I can get Copilot to sign a BA with strict rules about privacy and storage, and then 1-click add my open files to my context.
Folks should give these new experiences a try. Having claude chatbot integrated into your editor with the ability to see and modify your open files in a collaborative chat experience is very nice.
I use claude every day to help me write code. I doubt it's incompetence, but maybe a lack of trust. Cursor + Claude does great and I use it to do real work for my business.
How do you use Cursor? I was scratching my head at its pricing model, how's that 2000 completions a month? Is it enough? What are the "slow premium requests"? Do I need a course only to understand what I get for my money? I'm confused.
I find it's directly proportional to the inputs you give it. So either you need to break down the requests into smaller boxes, or use a tool like Cursor or my preferred, Aider. They both automatically bring in more context about your codebase, such as Aider bringing in your whole git repo map, to help it integrate better.
my biggest problem in coding is when I'm looking at things spanning 10 directories and 100 files with totally useless name like controller/viewer.js, viewer/controller.js, viewercontrols.js, etc and try to find where, 15 function calls ago and 80 statements ago some bug occurred. I was hoping that AI could help untangle these messes.
I'm finding the focus of UX/UI around the AI 2.0 very interesting.
It seems to boil down to:
- You go to where the AI is (which is what this is, and the other web/app interfaces)
- The AI comes to you (Cursor is a good example of this, everything from Microsoft is probably a bad example of this, Apple...i haven't tried yet)
I'm not sure if there is one clear winner, and certainly I tend to switch between the 2, depending very much on the context of what I'm doing.
One area that appears to be less advanced than I expected is search. We have Gemini mixed into the Google search page, and an explosion of AI generated content on webpages, making the traditional search experience even worse. I haven't even touched openAI's search, Im not sure why, is it good?
Where's my utopian dream of AI providing me with the exact information I'm after, and can trust, without having to fall back to ad infested websites and needing to open 1000 browser tabs to piece together the information I want.
ChatGpt and Claude are already on your desktop and working on connecting directly with your computer. Those features are in beta though, they will be coming to compete with AI Code Editors.
TLDR: Canvas is a new side by side mode in ChatGPT.
You can use it for improving documents. You interact with ChatGPT on the left panel. You see the document on the right panel including the editorial comments by ChatGPT.
You can also use it for running and debugging Python code. You interact with ChatGPT on the left panel. You see the code and the console messages/errors/output on the right.
I've been using Cursor for these writing use cases for a while (markdown, not code). Select part, ask for edits. It's quite handy. This actually sounds useful.
Though note that it runs python code via web assembly, on the client's device, using pyodide. Pretty easy way to avoid DOS attacks or even any resource usage on their servers.
Ostensibly they could add other platforms/languages that have wasm implementations.
Feels a bit like we are going full circle: From an interface that contains a document that the AI will complete or modify to a chat interface, to an interface that contains a document that the AI will modify.
Obviously this is a lot more refined than the rather simple playground interface of GPT3.5 that they eventually discontinued. But it feels a lot like going back to the roots, with the benefit of many of the lessons learned over the last two years.
Anyone else want an AI phone that would work and it's interface would be like chatGPT's iPhone app? A stark interface with some app icons like current phone UI.
Using chatGPT's iPhone app I am able to have an entire back n forth full conversation with it and able to get things done. Soon GPT will have vision AI and can discuss/work with what it sees or I show it. Apple Intelligence and Siri won't offer what I discuss here til Spring 2026. That gives competitors time to create and release an awesome new phone experience!
I'd drop iPhone for a GPT (Microsoft) phone/ device quickly!
*Slightly off topic but hoping it's one of Open AI's announcements ;-)
what's up with everyone abusing canvas? i was confused enough when a drawing webapp used it and it didn't mean the canvas html element. now not-openAI uses it for something that isn't even related to painting.
OpenAI has completely pivoted to a Product company (vs a Model / API company)
The minute they switch to API is the time their userbase realizes that OpenAI neither has the best model nor the most cost-effective one nor the fastest one.
So, their business strategy is subscription and bundle a bunch of products and market it to the mass.
They have a brand "chatGPT" recognition and they'll milk that.
Sam is more of a Steve Jobs than a Bill Gates personality or at least wannabe
You may think Anthropic is different? It's the same UI + API. The difference is they don't create free accounts for personal emails. Sort of shadow banning. However they accepted my work email for free account and personal email for payed API. May be that's just me, I tried several personals.
As for model's quality they are both impressive. I haven't run meaningful comparison tests.
I don't know what you imply by juxtoposing Jobs vs Gates. From what I know, Apple successfully marketed their hardware as a lifestyle. I don't think OpenAI is anything like that.
Somewhat offtopic, but I noticed that ChatGPT in a Firefox tab makes Firefox unstable. Often when Firefox misbehaves, I close the ChatGPT tab and things go back to normal. Did anyone else notice this? I'm running Firefox on Ubuntu 22.04, 64bit Intel, and I have plenty of RAM (64GB).
I used the OpenAI collab tool yesterday for a couple of hours.
I was trying to write a technical document.
Very clunky user experience. The AI felt like an annoying collaborator who took control when I was trying to do my job and didn’t obey when I asked it to do stuff and the basic markdown editing options were missing.
Switched to another non AI editor and got the job done quick.
Having said that, I like the idea and would use, but I do not want to ask AI to do find and replace. If they can flesh this out and improve it and make it "writer first, AI second" instead of "AI first" then it might be worth using.
I had the beta as well and have been using it quite a bit. I like the concept a lot. This is exactly how I want to be using AI for writing purposes. Overall, it’s whatever content I want to write in, but then I can ask it, “Hey, help me improve this line,” or “Fix this paragraph,” piecemeal.
That said, it only worked for me maybe 70% of the time. It would either have trouble finding things, or it would just arbitrarily rewrite the entire document, even when it was supposed to be focused on a certain part of it.
I found o1 to be overly verbose and rather "meh" for coding. Tried both o1-preview and o1-mini, haven't tried the new o1. I loved using o1 to draft implementation ideas, things to note, etc and hand them off to GPT-4o to write them though.
these announcements from OpenAI no longer has that exciting impact because of the repeated lies and disappointments in actual real world usage.
my attention instead is focused entirely on open source models and its competitors which are already pulling ahead without the need for fancy announcements.
Lastly, I really despise Sam for trying to cash out his non-profit RSUs and Elon Musk will most certainly prevent that from happening. While I'm not a grok simp or pay for X, I can already see OpenAI losing relevance.
For example announcement from Deepmind vs Sam's expressionless interviews has different energy.
FWIW, they lost my belief in them with the "advanced voice" debacle: they seem to have announced it when they did merely to scoop Google, not because that was a reasonable time to announce it :/. It then took them forever to actually release it, and while I totally use it (a lot: I am not saying it is a categorical failure or anything), it isn't anywhere near as good as their demo made it out to be; the result is that I simply don't believe any of their demos or announcements now: I'll believe it when I see it and evaluate it on its merits only then... watching their videos or reading their press releases is probably a waste of time and energy.
Got it. I think my bias in this is that 4o is my go-to chat model, and chat models are basically all I use; if you're doing more advanced stuff than that, I've got no visibility, and am inclined to just believe everything people say.
What is this 12 Days of Christmas thing, with Sam Altman sitting there? Do they really think they're perceived as benefactors or relatable, lovable startup scamps? By anyone following the AI space they're the enemy. They've made a mockery of the entire purpose of their company, ousted the board that resisted their direction, are abusing the charity laws while making billion-dollar for-profit deals with Microsoft and defense contractors, and they abandoned every single promise towards openness. Even their name is a lie.
I don’t get the hate for OpenAI. They’ve made life easier for me and I’m not going to pretend they haven’t.
They came out with a revolutionary chatbot that provides actual value. A few months later, every single company starts pushing their AI offerings (Gemini, Apple Intelligence, Grok, AI this and AI that). Sam and Co needs to compete.
> abusing the charity laws while making billion-dollar for-profit deals with Microsoft and defense contractors.
Who cares? Compute costs aren’t going to pay for themselves and money doesn’t grow on trees.
If they become ClosedAI, so be it. I’m still buying their stuff.
Who cares that a 501(c)(3) formed a shadow corp that's making multi-billion dollar deals with Microsoft and defense contractors, put a former NSA chief on its board, has stopped releasing all weights, and is scraping the entire Internet (and probably all your PII) to train its models in direct contravention of their mission statement to only do things that benefit humanity? Well, intelligent people care about that. The question you should be asking yourself is why don't you care?
Due to medical reasons, I’m on daily medications that heavily impact my cognitive abilities. This is combined with chronic pain, which affects every aspect of my life. Thinking, energy, stress etc. This has made everything harder. In fact it was suspected/suggested at one point, that I would never return to the workforce, though luckily this did not come to pass.
While I still retain my knowledge and can learn new skills, brain fog and exhaustion from my physical symptoms have made it difficult to communicate as effectively as I once did, which is particularly frustrating since communication was prior to these issues, my biggest strength. Now, I often struggle to express my ideas in a clear, digestible manner. It's very difficult to gather all my thoughts in the one place coherently for complex topics.
To assist with this, I use ChatGPT with Canvas as I guess a structured editing tool. I input my content and research, organise it to the best of my ability, and ask for feedback to refine the presentation. Clarifying structure, reducing redundancy, and improving flow. I don’t ask or let it insert data about the topic itself, I ask only that it modify how my data is communicated.
It’s a bittersweet solution, but I would say that it's helped me remain employed, which is important, because I have a lot of ongoing medical costs.