A lot of these things are made fast and loose, and unfortunately this is the reality of using the bleeding edge. Even Figma went through this kind of thing very early on.

To add something else to the discussion however, I'd encourage people to skip out on Claude Design for other reasons, and that is the inherent restrictions of LLMs for visual design. LLMs are blind, and spatial relativity is tremendously hard across layers of nested html / css.

If you're early on, I'd recommend starting with diffusion first. GPT-Image-2 is phenominal at UI design, and especially if you're just starting out will let you align on a direction more rapidly than an LLM can. The difficulty will be converting from image->html, but you'll be able to explore different directions more cheaply/faster than you could with Claude Design.

I will note a bias disclaimer here - I quit Figma to work on my own diffusion-based UI design tool. Not promoting that here, but wanted to at least share my findings in this space.

What do you mean LLMs are blind? All frontier models are multimodal, which means they literally consume images as tokens. They can “see” exactly as well as they can “read”.

Also, GPT-Image-2 is not a diffusion model, it is based on Transformers, like other LLMs are.

This has not been my experience. Claude artifacts at first, then Claude Design after it was released, are excellent at design! The way I can steer the model updating the design with different ideas and visions, even adopting different design systems like Material 3 or Apple’s HIG it has been phenomenal.

If you say the image models don't "see" you also have to say the text models don't "read": there's a meaningful case to be made for either claim but then you're left saying "they behave as if they see" or "they behave as if they read".

Thank you so much for your suggestion regarding UI design. As my main expertise is not this, I need some tool to depend on to ground my projects somehow. Even though stitch by google and claude design are not perfect, they give me some starting point. And then, after building the actual working project, will iterate until I like the look of it. This is how I'm using these right now. I can't even itearte on these design LLM's now, their own UX is very clunky and not very friendly, or its made more for the design folks.

But I will give GPT-Image-2 a try. Actually few months back I remember doing this UX/UI research on the chat gpt app itself, just asking it to generate what a certain app might look like and etc.

Please let me know your UI design tool. I'm want to try it out.

Or just use Google's Stitch, it integrates both code via Gemini and image UI generation via Nano Banana which I'd argue is even better than OpenAI's image models.

> A lot of these things are made fast and loose

Yeah, I'm starting to be worried about Anthropic's security controls for customer information.

To say they'd have a firehose of sensitive info from customers would be a massive understatement. Hackers gaining access to that, especially for a non-trivial duration, would be a disaster.

Multimodal LLMs are not blind.

Claude design in my experience is very, very solid.

Huh, I never thought of asking an image model to prototype a UI. It's a good idea though, I will try it next time.

> A lot of these things are made fast and loose

No kidding - you can't even delete a design system, draft or otherwise. Research Preview is accurate, it can do some things (but every system I've tried building it has resorted to the "hero text with key word in a different color" trope, however I try different prompts), but there's a lot missing (and when you ask Claude Design how to delete a design system it gives you an absolutely inaccurate and hallucinated answer and you say fine, here's the project ID, do it for me, "Sorry, can't, only you can").

> A lot of these things are made fast and loose, and unfortunately this is the reality of using the bleeding edge.

Anthropic lazily calls everything a preview and then pushes it hard on everyone. That feels dishonest