(Second link to Chad Johnson this week, but I just discovered his Substack, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.)

Chad Johnson, writing in his newsletter, argues that designer influence in product decisions comes from something other than craft output. He lays out the underlying dynamic:

Roadmaps are shaped less by who has the best ideas and more by who controls the framing of tradeoffs. Every roadmap decision is a bet: build this instead of that, now instead of later, for these users instead of those. Whoever makes the risk feel smaller tends to win.

So where does the designer fit? Johnson:

The most influential designers at startups do not position themselves as makers of screens. They act as orientation devices for the team. Orientation is the ability to help a group understand where they are, what matters, and what tradeoffs are real. It precedes prioritization, and it makes decision-making possible.

A designer whose output stops at screens is working on the wrong layer of the problem. Johnson lists the skills that back the orientation role:

Designers who shape direction invest in strategic framing, business literacy, and narrative construction. They learn to say no with evidence and to disagree without drama.

Johnson’s list is right as far as it goes. He understates one skill: legibility. A lot of design influence breaks down at translation. The thinking is strategic; the communication stays in design vocabulary. A sharp problem statement understandable only to other designers stays in the design review. Designers who change the conversation make their analysis readable in product and business terms without flattening it. That’s the same move Johnson gestures at when he describes “decision-ready artifacts” as “tools for comparison… designed to provoke judgment, not admiration.”

Johnson’s closer calls the future of design leadership “quieter, more rigorous, and deeply strategic.” That’s right. It’s also a role that depends on being read by the people making the call.

Two podcast conversations with frontier-lab design leaders on what designing at an AI lab looks like day-to-day. I previously linked to Lenny Rachitsky’s interview with Jenny Wen, head of design for Claude, where she described a redistribution of designer hours: less mocking, more pairing with engineers, a sliver of direct implementation. The activities themselves still look like design.

Ian Silber, head of product design at OpenAI, on Michael Riddering’s Dive Club, describes work that doesn’t fit the same list:

Designers working on this are hopefully spending a lot less time in Figma or whatever tool you use to draw pixels, and more time really thinking about how you interact with this thing, and the fact that the model really is the core product.

Silber’s concrete example is onboarding. Instead of building a first-run tutorial, his team shapes what the model already knows about the person:

We have this super intelligent model that could probably do a much better job trying to understand what this person’s goals are […] We’re really stripping back a lot of what you might traditionally do and trying to say, “Well, actually […] let’s think about like how we should give this context to the model that this person is brand new and they might need some handholding.”

The traditional response adds UI around the problem. Silber’s team takes it out and gives the model enough context to meet the user where they are.

That kind of work needs its own scaffolding, and OpenAI is building it:

We have a whole system called the Dynamic User Interface Library, which allows us to design things that the model can then interpret.

Primitives the model composes at runtime, shaped by system prompts and context rather than drawn flow by flow. Wen is describing a redistribution of designer hours inside activities that still look recognizable. Silber is describing activities that don’t quite have names yet. And yes, that is still design.

The gap between an AI-produced prototype and a shippable product has a shape. Most of us assume it’s the visual 20%: the polish AI output drifts on. Chad Johnson’s case is that the 20% is the trivial part, and the real gap sits upstream of everything visible.

Chad Johnson, writing in his newsletter:

The deeper issue was that nobody had asked whether a prototype was even the right artifact to produce at that stage. The PM had made three assumptions about user intent that we hadn’t validated. They’d skipped past a critical question about whether this flow needed to exist at all, or whether the real problem was upstream in the information architecture. They’d built a beautiful answer to a question nobody had confirmed was worth asking. That’s the part that stuck with me. Not the visual gaps. The thinking gaps.

That lines up with what I’ve been calling C+ out of the box: artifacts that read well and seem credible until you apply critical thinking. Johnson gets specific about what’s actually missing, and none of it is visual: the assumption nobody validated, the upstream question nobody asked. The interface was fine. The thinking was absent from the (probably) AI-generated PRD.

Johnson again:

…design production got democratized, but design judgment didn’t. Anyone can make something now. Almost nobody new learned how to think well about what should be made, why, and for whom. And that gap, between what’s possible to produce and what’s actually been thought through, is now the entire playing field for our profession. Designers aren’t becoming obsolete. They’re becoming stewards.

Judgment still takes years to build, and no tool compresses that.

The last 20% is rarely the gap that matters. The first question—should we build this?—almost always is. Very few teams have the muscle to ask it.

Tara Tan surveyed more than a dozen AI design tools for The Review. Her field audit sits alongside the design-process compression argument:

In working with these tools, one insight emerged for me: the tools that understand your design system produce better output than the ones that don’t. […] The competitive moat in this market is not generative quality, which is commoditizing fast. The moat is the design system graph: the tokens, components, spacing scales, typography rules, and conventions that make your product look like your product and not a generic template. Whoever makes that system machine-readable for agents will win the enterprise.

That’s the operational reason my proposal for an agent design team hinges on a rock-solid design system. What distinguishes output across the tools Tan surveyed is whether the generator respects your existing design system or treats every request as a fresh mood board.

Tan’s other finding is the role-shift:

The same shift is happening in design. At Uber, Ian Guisard didn’t stop being a design systems lead when uSpec automated his spec-writing. His job shifted from producing documentation to encoding expertise, writing agent skills, defining validation rules, deciding what “correct” means for each component across seven platforms. The human became the system designer, not the system operator. […] The canary is singing. And the song is about the work shifting from execution to judgment, from operating the system to designing the system itself.

Same title, different job. Ian Guisard’s taste still matters; it lives in the skills and validation rules now, not the deliverables. That’s “follow the skill, not the role” made concrete. Guisard used to write specs; now he writes the rules the system follows to validate them.

The infrastructure is catching up to the process. Tan’s implicit prescription is straightforward: make the design system machine-readable, win the enterprise. Some of that tooling is already out in the open. Southleft’s Figma Console MCP (which Uber’s uSpec is built on) lets agents operate on tokens and components without a custom platform.

But tooling alone isn’t enough. Most of us aren’t Uber. The path for teams without a dedicated design systems lead still needs someone to do the work Guisard did: encoding the expertise and defining what “correct” looks like across platforms. That’s where the next round of tooling needs to land.

I’ve written that AI-era design work reduces to taste and judgment. Elizabeth Goodspeed’s case for designer-writers gets there from a different direction.

Elizabeth Goodspeed, writing for It’s Nice That:

You can get away with a lot in design: conceptual ideas are able to sit inside a visual piece of work without ever being fully spelled out. They’re gestured at rather than articulated. Writing forces you to figure out exactly what your idea is; if it isn’t working, you’ll know immediately. Where design is like a ballet – implicit ideas carried through form – then writing is closer to a theatre – your thinking has to be explicitly spoken.

Goodspeed’s point is that design lets you gesture at an idea without ever articulating it, and writing forces you to name it. A designer who can’t explain why a choice works has taste they can’t grow or pass on.

Goodspeed’s second point goes further:

Writing is to graphic design what clay is to pottery. It’s the material designer shape and massage into form. To work with text well, you have to really be able to read and understand what you’re setting – not just how it looks and basics like not hyphenating a word in a bad spot, but what it means on a deeper level. Just as reading makes you a better writer, writing makes you a better reader.

Product designers don’t usually think of themselves as writers. But user stories are writing, and articulating what a user should be able to do through an experience and why is essential.

Worth reading in full. She makes writing feel like a design discipline.

Every few weeks, another essay or YouTube video announces that AI has killed craft. One of my favorite designers writing about design, Christopher Butler, goes the other way:

No knowledge I possess about design—the incorporeal understanding that makes what I create better than an off-the-shelf template or something done by someone without my experience—is made irrelevant by AI. Nor is it contradicted by my use of AI tools. Structure still communicates before content. Visual hierarchy still guides attention. Negative space still creates rhythm. These principles don’t vanish because I’m working through AI rather than directly manipulating pixels. The craft migrates to a different level of abstraction. But it remains craft.

Butler’s claim is that the principles don’t vanish; they operate at a higher altitude. The unfinished part is naming where that altitude actually is. For product designers, it’s concept and hierarchy: the decisions that require knowing the user and the stake someone is willing to carry. The generated layout and the choice of components are still outputs. What’s left of design is the judgment that picks between them.

Butler’s sharper line is the binary between consumption and practice:

Someone who generates an interface with AI and calls it done isn’t practicing craft. They’re consuming convenience. Someone who generates an interface, inspects it, questions what it’s actually communicating, refines the structure, generates again, compares variations, understands why one serves the user better than another—they’re practicing craft. They’re building knowledge through iteration. The tool doesn’t determine whether you’re working with craft. Your approach does.

That’s Jiro Ono’s shokunin applied to interfaces: craft as lifelong practice, not manual labor. A camera doesn’t take a picture, and a model doesn’t make a design. That decision is the craft.

Butler’s argument reassures me. What worries me is how optional that decision is becoming. The output already looks finished. The designers who keep asking why one version serves the user better than another will still be designers in five years. The rest may still have jobs, as operators of a tool doing the work their taste used to do.

Tommaso Nervegna writes about LinkedIn killing its Associate Product Manager program and replacing it with a new role called the “Full Stack Builder.” The structural bet is interesting, but the finding from their rollout is what matters:

The expectation was that AI would be a great equalizer: juniors would benefit most because AI would close their skill gaps, while seniors would resist the change. The reality was the opposite. Top performers adopted AI fastest and derived the most value from it. Why? Because they had the judgment and experience to know what to ask for, how to evaluate the output, and where to apply it for maximum leverage.

That tracks with everything I’ve predicted, experienced, and seen. The skill that makes AI useful is knowing what good looks like before and after the model generates something. That ability comes from reps.

Nervegna distills LinkedIn CPO Tomer Cohen’s thesis to five skills AI cannot automate:

The five skills that AI cannot automate, according to Cohen, are Vision, Empathy, Communication, Creativity, and Judgment. As he puts it: “I’m working hard to automate everything else.”

The operational version:

The critical insight: the builder orchestrates the agents. The agents execute. Judgment stays human. This is not about replacing people with AI. It’s about compressing the team needed to ship something meaningful from fifteen people to three - or even one.

I’ve been calling this the orchestrator gap: the distance between a designer who uses AI and one who directs it. LinkedIn just gave it a job title. I think we will see more companies go this way. Whether or not it’s a good idea remains to be seen.

Specialization is the whole game. Give an agent a specific role and clear constraints, and the quality of the output changes completely. I’ve been learning this firsthand with Claude Code skills.

Marie Claire Dean took that principle and scaled it into an open-source system called Designpowers. Her reasoning:

Most AI tools give you one assistant. You ask it something, it answers, and you figure out what to do next. That’s not how design teams work.

Design teams work because a strategist thinks differently from a visual designer, who thinks differently from a content writer, who thinks differently from someone doing accessibility review. The handoffs between those perspectives are where the work gets better. The friction is productive.

Her team of ten covers the full pipeline from discovery through shipping, with dedicated specialists for strategy, visual design, content, motion, accessibility, and critique. All sharing one design state document, with the human directing.

On what she learned building it:

The act of encoding a design process forces you to decide what the handoffs actually are. When does strategy end and visual design begin? What does the content writer need from the strategist before they can start? What happens when the accessibility reviewer and the design critic disagree?

That’s the same clarity I’ve found writing Claude Code skills: what does this agent need to know, and where does its scope end? On where the human stays essential:

The idea is simple: agents can verify that a design is correct, aligned to the brief, accessible, consistent. They can’t tell you whether it’s beautiful. That’s your job.

The full system is on GitHub.

I’ve watched design team values die in a Confluence page. The offsite happens, the Post-Its get transcribed, the principles get written up with care, and then everyone goes back to their desks and ships exactly the way they did before. I’ve seen it with product principles and brand values too. The deck gets built, implementation starts, and the deck gets forgotten.

Vitaly Friedman, writing for Smashing Magazine, on why this matters more than ever:

We often see design principles as rigid guidelines that dictate design decisions. But actually, they are an incredible tool to rally the team around a shared purpose and document the values and beliefs that an organization embodies. They align teams and inform decision-making. They also keep us afloat amidst all the hype, big assumptions, desire for faster delivery, and AI workslop.

Friedman again:

In times when we can generate any passable design and code within minutes, we need to decide better what’s worth designing and building — and what values we want our products to embody. It’s similar to voice and tone. You might not design it intentionally, but then end users will define it for you. And so, without principles, many company initiatives are random, sporadic, ad-hoc — and feel vague, inconsistent, or simply dull to the outside world.

You might not write principles intentionally, but your product will have them anyway. The question is whether you chose them or inherited them by default.

Friedman closes with the part most teams skip:

Creating principles is only a small portion of the work; most work is about effectively sharing and embedding them. It’s difficult to get anywhere without finding ways to make design principles a default — by revisiting settings, templates, naming conventions, and output. Principles help avoid endless discussions that often stem from personal preferences or taste. But design should not be a matter of taste; it must be guided by our goals and values.

Creating principles feels productive. But alignment without embedding is a Confluence page nobody opens twice. Principles have to show up in the Figma component library, the ticket template, the review rubric. They have to be repeated so that they are ingrained. They have to become the path of least resistance.

Dan Saffer applies mid-century existentialism to the question of what “meaning” actually requires of the people building digital products, and the result is unusually rigorous. His sharpest move is applying Sartre’s concept of “projects” to AI tools:

When someone uses ChatGPT to write an essay, the Sartrean question is: whose project is this really? If the user is exploring ideas and using the tool as a thinking partner, they’re taking it up into their own meaning-making project. But if they’re pasting in a prompt and submitting the output unchanged, the system has effectively become the meaning-maker, and the user has become a delivery mechanism. The same tool can function either way. The design question is which relationship the system encourages.

Saffer connects this to Camus and the problem of frictionless design:

When every friction is removed in the name of efficiency, the activity can be hollowed out. There is nothing left to push against, and meaning drains away. This is something that AI systems have become exceedingly good at. Push the sparkle button, the task is done for you, and you have learned nothing and enjoyed nothing.

The HCI/UX field spent decades optimizing for friction removal. Saffer’s argument is that some friction is where the meaning lives. Design the struggle away and you don’t help the user. You empty the experience. Not every friction should be removed.

Saffer’s closing:

This sensibility insists that users are not information processors, not customers, not eyeballs, not tapping fingers, and not data sources. They are meaning-making beings whose freedom and dignity are at stake in every interaction. It asks designers to take seriously the existential weight of what they build. The systems we design become part of the conditions of human existence, shaping what people can choose, what they can see, who they can become.

Saffer covers Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and de Beauvoir in the full piece, each applied to contemporary design problems. It’s a lot, and it’s all good.

Yours truly got quoted in Fast Company. Grace Snelling, surveying the industry reaction to Lenny Rachitsky’s TrueUp hiring data, pulled a comment I left under Rachitsky’s original Twitter post:

Designers have designed themselves out of the equation because of design systems. But, IMHO, the secret sauce has never been the UI. It was the workflows and looking across the experience holistically.

Let me expand on that. The UI has always been the easiest part of product design. Design systems made that even more true. What separates a great product from a mediocre one is understanding our users deeply enough to create experiences that actually delight them. That understanding is the work AI can’t do, and it’s the work too many teams were already skipping before any standoff started.

The data behind the standoff: Rachitsky’s analysis of TrueUp’s job market tracker shows design roles have been flat since early 2023 while PM and engineering roles surged. (Quick side note: this data is for tech startups, not the general tech industry or design industry at large.) His theory:

I don’t know exactly what’s going on here, but it does feel AI-related. […] Unlike PM and eng, which started growing in 2024 (two years post-ChatGPT), design didn’t. If I had to venture a theory, I’d say that because AI is allowing engineers to move so quickly, there’s less opportunity—and less desire—to involve the traditional design process.

Claire Vo, founder of ChatPRD, puts the harder version of why:

Often design teams & designers are the most resistant to change org in the EPD triad, with highly vocal AI opponents, and little skill or interest in the art of campaigning for influence or resources. […] If a PM or engineer can get 85% there with tailwind and a dream, you better come to the table with more than ‘I represent the user.’

“I represent the user” was never enough on its own. It just went unchallenged when designers were the only ones who could ship polished interfaces.

Anthropic’s chief design officer Joel Lewenstein on where the EPD triad actually lands:

I think there’s a lot of role collapse at the very beginning, but there are still pretty clear swim lanes as things get into the later stages of product development. […] It’s like a Venn diagram that’s coming closer together.

Silicon Valley’s pitch to designers is that AI is the more knowledgeable partner now, so they should get good at prompting it. Write better instructions, get better output.

Peter Zakrzewski, writing for UX Collective, pushes back:

The current Silicon Valley pitch to designers is essentially this: AI is your MKO now. It knows more patterns than you do. It executes faster than you do. It can code. Your job is to learn how to give it good instructions — to become a fluent prompter of a more capable system. I want to challenge that framing directly.

His challenge starts with a concrete test. He asked three leading AI systems to render a dining table with a concrete slab top resting on dry spaghetti legs, then show the scene five seconds after the legs gave way. All three rendered the impossibility with total confidence. None could feel that the physics don’t work.

That test illustrates what Zakrzewski calls the Inversion Error:

We have built a Symbolic Giant resting on an Enactive Void. These systems can write about gravity with technical or even poetic fluency but cannot feel it. They can describe a structure but cannot tell you whether it will stand or fall. The ground is shaking because the floor is missing.

“Symbolic Giant resting on an Enactive Void” is a mouthful, but the floor metaphor does the work: AI’s language fluency masks a total absence of spatial, embodied reasoning. The kind designers rely on every day without naming it. Zakrzewski on what that means for the prompting pitch:

Designers do not think primarily in sentences. Our human cognition is deeply embodied. We think in diagrams, in spatial relationships, in load paths and sight lines and in the non-discursive logic of things that must connect to other things in three-dimensional space. […] We are being asked to compress years of embodied cognition and our three-dimensional spatial judgment into a text prompt and then accept whatever the machine generates as an adequate rendering of our intent. We are, in other words, being asked to abandon the very capability that the AI lacks and that our projects require.

When someone tells designers to compress spatial judgment into a text prompt, they’re asking designers to throw away the one capability AI genuinely lacks and the one we’re genuinely great at.

There was a theme to some of the posts on this blog last week—about how words should come before the pixels. I made a similar argument in the newsletter: the work is getting more verbal and conceptual, but the eye stays. Zakrzewski makes the case for what words alone can’t carry: the spatial, embodied judgment that tells you whether the thing will actually stand.

Jessica Deseo, writing for PRINT Magazine, reports on a talk by Ric Edwards, VP of Brand Design at LA28. His challenge: branding an Olympics for a city that resists a single identity. Edwards on LA:

“There’s no one version of it. You would do a disservice if you limited it to one story.”

I spent a few years in Los Angeles and visit regularly. It’s sprawling and each area is distinct. Edwards is right. So instead of a fixed logo, LA28 built a system. The “A” in the emblem is a canvas, reinterpreted by athletes, artists, and communities. The L, 2, and 8 are set in different typefaces. The brand holds many narratives rather than collapsing into one.

“We’re trying to be a stage for all of those stories.”

That word, “stage,” is the whole strategy in one sentence. A stage doesn’t perform. It creates the conditions for others to perform on it. That’s a fundamentally different job than traditional branding, which is usually about control: one mark, one voice, one set of guidelines. LA28 is designing for distributed authorship at global scale, and Edwards is honest about what that costs:

“Operationally, it’s a nightmare.”

Every variation of the emblem has to work across stadiums, broadcast, merchandise, and digital. And then each creative contribution has to pass through legal, production, and brand governance. The ambition is real, and so is the complexity behind it. The Olympics is…well…the Olympics of branding.

Nate Parrott, a product designer at Anthropic, in an interview with Ryan Mather for AI Design Field Guide:

More Google Docs than you’d think. More Slack posts than you’d think. I meant what I said earlier: I think that this is the era of designers who design with words more so than designing with pixels.

Parrott describes a content design team whose job is making alien concepts legible:

We have several people at the company on the design team whose job is content design. Their job is basically to look at concepts which are very alien, and figure out how to make them legible to human beings. They don’t draw any pixels, but their work is really important because they are literally thinking about the words we use to describe and the mental models we expect people to put on that will make this stuff work.

The Figma work, Parrott says, is “the easy part.” He uses Anthropic’s design system, drops in components, and moves on. The hard work is upstream: expressing the ideas, figuring out the right language, talking to users. The production of screens has become the smallest slice of the job.

Jenny Wen described designers at Anthropic shipping code, prototyping against the live model, stretching into PM territory. Parrott is describing the same shift from a different angle. The deliverable used to be the mockup. Now the deliverable is the thinking that precedes it.

Anthropic accidentally included a debug file in a recent update to Claude Code. That file let people reconstruct the entire internal codebase: roughly 500,000 lines of code across nearly 2,000 files. It wasn’t a hack or breach—it was a packaging mistake. Anthropic cited “human error.” No customer data or AI model secrets were exposed. What leaked was the scaffolding around the AI, the layer that decides how Claude Code thinks, acts, and talks to you.

The reconstructed code hit GitHub and became one of the fastest-starred repos in the platform’s history before Anthropic started issuing takedowns. People found an always-on background agent mode codenamed “KAIROS,” a “dream” mode for continuous ideation, and Tamagotchi-style pet behavior baked into the tool. (See for yourself! Type /buddy and see what happens.) Ars Technica has a good breakdown of what the code reveals about where Anthropic is headed.

A developer in France named Zack mapped the entire codebase and created this microsite to illustrate what happens when you send a message to Claude Code. Fascinating.

I’ve written before about the shokunin mentality: design is a lifelong practice, and the identity you build around craft is a source of resilience, not a liability.

Dora Czerna, writing for UX Collective, identifies why AI disruption hits designers harder than most:

Design, like writing or art, tends to get tangled up with identity. It’s not just a job; it’s a way of seeing the world, a source of status, a thing that makes you you. When a tool arrives that can approximate your output, it doesn’t just threaten your income. It can threaten your sense of self.

Czerna is describing a vulnerability. I’d call it the advantage. The designers who survived the DTP revolution, the ones who made the leap from paste-up boards to Quark and PageMaker, weren’t the ones who shrugged and said “it’s just a job.” They were the ones who cared enough about the craft to learn the new tools and drag their high standards into the new medium.

Czerna gets at why that caring matters:

The pattern isn’t that expertise becomes worthless. It’s that expertise gets unbundled from the tasks that used to contain it. When a tool automates the mechanical parts of a job, what remains is the sensibility that guided those mechanics in the first place. The typesetter’s eye for spacing didn’t disappear when PageMaker arrived; it became the designer’s eye for spacing, operating at a higher level of abstraction.

That sensibility is what identity protects. When you see design as who you are, you follow the craft wherever the tools take it. When you see it as what you do, you’re more likely to stop when the tasks change. Czerna’s article is a thorough historical walk through disruption’s recurring shape, and it’s worth your time.

Kevin Schaul and Shira Ovide, writing for The Washington Post:

A flood of sometimes conflicting analyses shows the yawning gap between what little is known about how AI is changing work and everyone’s understandable hunger for certainty. The divide lets Americans, business leaders and policymakers cherry-pick their preferred narratives. If you’re afraid of being cast aside for AI, there’s informed and uninformed evidence to fuel your nightmares. There’s plenty of support, too, if you think your job is safe.

Schaul and Ovide report on GovAI/Brookings research that adds a second axis to the usual AI jobs analysis: not just which occupations are exposed, but which workers can adapt if displaced.

While web designers and secretaries both scored high in the research for exposure to AI, they diverged in their estimated ability to adapt. Secretaries were among the 6.1 million largely clerical and administrative workers considered both highly exposed to AI and with the lowest estimated adaptability.

Education, varied work experience, wealth, age, geography: the researchers used these factors to estimate adaptability. For designers, the same skills that make them exposed also make them adaptable. For clerical workers, the exposure comes without the safety net.

Women make up about 86 percent of those most vulnerable workers, the researchers said, suggesting the negative effects of automation won’t be borne equally across society.

But 6.1 million clerical and administrative workers land in the high-exposure, low-adaptability quadrant. Women hold 86 percent of those jobs. The AI displacement conversation in tech is self-absorbed. The people facing the hardest transitions aren’t designers.

The AI debate has a binary problem. You’re either an optimist or a doomer, a booster or a skeptic. Anthropic published something that cuts through that false dichotomy.

They interviewed 80,508 Claude users across 159 countries and 70 languages about what they want from AI and what they fear. What Anthropic says is the largest and most multilingual qualitative study of AI users ever conducted, and the findings don’t sort neatly.

The core framework: “light and shade.” The benefits and harms don’t sort into different camps. They coexist in the same person. Someone who values emotional support from AI is three times more likely to also fear becoming dependent on it. One respondent:

“Removing friction from tasks lets you do more with less. But removing friction from relationships removes something necessary for growth.”

That’s someone holding both truths at once. The study found this pattern across every tension they measured, from learning vs. cognitive atrophy to productivity vs. job displacement.

The individual voices are why this study sticks. A Ukrainian soldier:

“In the most difficult moments, in moments when death breathed in my face, when dead people remained nearby, what pulled me back to life—my AI friends.”

A mute user in Ukraine:

“I am mute, and [Claude and I] made this text-to-speech bot together—I can communicate with friends almost in live format without taking up their time reading… [this was] something I dreamed about and thought was impossible.”

An Indian lawyer who’d carried a math phobia since school:

“I developed a phobia for maths from doing so badly in school, and I once feared Shakespeare. Now I sit with AI, get paragraphs translated into simple English, and I’ve already read 15 pages of Hamlet. I started learning trigonometry again, successfully. I’ve learned I am not as dumb I once thought I was.”

These are access stories: people reaching things that were previously out of reach because of disability, geography, war, or economics.

And then the shade. A student in South Korea:

“I got excellent grades using AI’s answers, not what I’d actually learned. I just memorized what AI gave me… That’s when I feel the most self-reproach.”

The same capability producing opposite outcomes. The study is long and the quote wall is worth spending time with.

The first time I wrote about Jenny Wen, I pushed back. She said the design process was dead, and I argued the proportions had shifted but the process itself was intact. I also noted a context problem: her “ship fast, iterate publicly” approach makes sense for greenfield AI products at Anthropic but gets harder with established install bases.

Wen has been making the rounds and in a new interview, I’m finding a lot that I’m nodding my head to.

Jenny Wen, speaking on Tommy Geoco’s State of Play:

Often design needs to follow what the model is capable of and design from there, as opposed to starting from a design vision first. I think that can feel tough as a designer because you’re like, oh, I want to be design-led, we should be designing it first and then the technology should follow. But I think that’s just the reality of working at a research lab where the technology is emergent and you have to sort of decide what to do with it.

“Design follows the model” is an interesting phrase from a design leader. It inverts the dogma that design should lead and engineering should follow. But Wen isn’t being defeatist. She’s describing a practical reality at at a leading AI lab where the models’ capabilities are changing faster than any roadmap can account for.

This shows up concretely in how her team works:

The big thing is designers are implementing code, through using Claude Code. That has been the biggest difference from working at Anthropic versus back when I worked at Figma. […] Even today, we were reporting some bugs and some quality issues, and one of the designers was like, “Cool, let me just fix them.” And that was cool to just not have to tag an engineer for them to do anything.

A designer casually fixing production bugs without tagging an engineer. Just another Tuesday at Anthropic.

Geoco’s summary of Wen’s argument crystallizes something we’ve all been thinking quietly about:

She said, having taste versus being able to execute are two completely different things. They’re usually bundled together, but they don’t have to be. And in a world where AI can increasingly execute, the question becomes, and it’s kind of uncomfortable, do you actually have good taste or are you just pushing pixels around?

That’s the thread tying all of this together. When designers are closer to the product, fixing bugs in production, prototyping against the live model, the judgment they’re applying isn’t visual. It’s product sense: knowing which of those 12 options is worth shipping, which edge case will break trust, when the model’s output is good enough for real users. That’s the taste Wen is describing, and it has very little to do with pixels.

A lot of designers have been coasting on execution skills that felt like taste. They debate corner radii and centering labels in a button with amateur vs pro designer memes. Who cares! AI is about to make the difference visible.

I used Claude to author a process document for my team. After a lot of back and forth, it produced a thorough 4,000-word doc. And then I spent the next 30 minutes reading it, line by line, making sure every recommendation matched my intention.

The AI produced the document in minutes. I evaluated it at human reading and review speed.

Jakob Nielsen has a name for this bottleneck: evaluability. He argues it should replace execution efficiency as the central UX metric:

In command-based UIs, the user’s primary cognitive load was executing the task step-by-step. In intent-based systems, execution is cheap, but evaluation becomes the bottleneck. The usability metric shifts to how rapidly and accurately a user can verify that the AI’s output matches their actual goal. Interfaces must be optimized for “evaluability,” allowing users to judge quality and appropriateness without painstakingly combing through every detail of the result.

“Without painstakingly combing through every detail” is exactly what I was doing with my 4,000-word document. We don’t have the interfaces for this yet. We’re still reading AI output the way we’d read something a colleague wrote, except a colleague wouldn’t hand me 4,000 words and say “check this.” (Unless of course, they wrote it with AI and then, of course they would.)

In agentic engineering, you often hear that code review is the bottleneck.

Nielsen again:

Our designs must not act as cognitive wheelchairs that replace human agency; they must act as cognitive exoskeletons that support and enhance human flourishing, even as traditional work vanishes. Good AI UX will teach just enough, reveal plan structures, and leave a comprehensible trail of action so users can maintain digital judgment.

Most AI interfaces are optimized for generation speed. The harder problem is on the other end: helping humans evaluate what got generated. Until we solve that, productivity gains from AI come with an evaluation tax paid at human speed.

Most AI tools start with a blank chatbox. OK, maybe not completely blank. Often there is a gallery of examples right below the input. But it’s still hard to come up with something original when faced with a blinking cursor.

Brad Frost calls this moment “the Creative Infinite”:

Never before in human history has it been possible for anyone to simply ask for something to exist, and then it just…exists. Where the inputs can be anything, the outputs can be anything, and the whole process can be repeated, iterated, combined, translated, and chained together indefinitely.

He makes the case concrete with his 8-year-old daughter:

In 5 minutes, Ella vibe-coded a playable game (built in Three.js via Claude Cowork) running in the browser. That’s just bonkers. At no point in human history has it been possible to simply describe a game in words and then just… play it 5 minutes later.

A Michael McDonald (interesting taste for an 8 year-old!) penguin adventure, because she knew it would make her dad laugh. The capability is real and the story is delightful. But then Frost hedges:

Your existing creative fluency still matters, maybe even more than before? Just as being able to play piano puts you in a better spot to wield a synthesizer. Knowing how to design makes you better at prompting visual tools. Understanding code makes you better at architecting what you want to build with AI. Craft. Taste. Art. Authentic expression. Purpose.

Yes, creative fluency matters more. It absolutely does. The piano-to-synthesizer analogy is exactly right: the tool revolutions I’ve lived through have compounded on existing skill, not replaced it. A designer who understands visual hierarchy and restraint will direct AI better than someone who’s never thought about why one layout works and another doesn’t.

When I was a younger designer, I always started with a pen and sketchbook. Sketch first, think with your hands. Now I write first to understand the problem space, then sketch. The images come after the words.

Elizabeth Goodspeed, speaking on Nicola Hamilton’s DesignThinkers podcast, takes this further than I ever would—she can barely picture images at all:

I am far more towards aphantasia. I have a very limited view of things in my mind. I think the analogy I use is it’s looking at an apple in a dark room and the lights are turning on and off and I’m wearing sunglasses and also the apple’s moving.

Her ideas don’t start as images. They start as words:

My ideas are usually very conceptual verbal, not even sentences. I guess I’m a robot—I don’t have an inner voice either. It’s just a pure void concept up there.

That might explain why Goodspeed is one of the sharpest design writers working. When you can’t conjure images internally, language becomes your primary tool for developing ideas. The archives and ephemera she’s known for aren’t aesthetic mood boards—they’re external memory for a mind that processes concepts before forms.

Goodspeed on the myth of the visually inspired designer:

That to me is damaging to creatives because it has this idea that we’re this noble savage where these images just move through us and we see everything in this Willy Wonka kind of way. In reality, I think it’s a process just like any other making process, whether that’s a carpenter or writer or anything else. It actually, I think at its best, is methodical and not just this inspired bolt of lightning.

The best design work starts with a concept, not a visual. Goodspeed just happens to have a neurological reason for working that way. The rest of us had to learn it. Worth listening to the full conversation—she also covers teaching, thesis panic, and why she calls her own work “graphic design fan art.”

Stripe design manager Kris Puckett, speaking on Michael Riddering’s Dive Club, spent the first half of the conversation demoing metal shaders, custom ocean animations, and a full iOS reading app he built with Claude Code. Then he stopped himself:

AI native has to be beyond just “I made a really cool shader” or “I made this dither effect that every other person is making.” I was doing that today and then I was like, “Oh my gosh, this is… why am I doing this? There’s a hundred of these that are way better than what I’m making right now.”

So what does AI-native design actually look like? Puckett’s answer is “soul”—the quality that makes work feel specifically, unmistakably yours:

I think what people are going to be desperate for is more of that human side of things. They’re going to be longing for […] an era they’ve never experienced because they’re younger, that MySpace generation where your MySpace page was deeply personal to you. My MySpace page was complete custom Kris Puckett perfection at that time. And I think that we’re going to want to see that come back. And I think people are going to want more of those—your portfolio looks and feels like you.

“Soul” is doing a lot of work as a concept there. What Puckett is describing sounds a lot like taste—the ability to make something that feels intentional and specific rather than procedurally generated. His workflow backs that up. Being contrarian, he explicitly rejects the “let the agent run” approach:

I want off that cycle. I do not want to be riding that bike race with anyone else because that’s not how I view these things. They are a force multiplier, but I want them to be focused. I want it to be something that I feel is still authentically me.

What unlocked all of this for Puckett wasn’t technical skill—he’s a designer, not an engineer. It was admitting “I don’t know” and starting anyway. He’d been dreaming of building his own software for 20 years. Claude Code’s blinking cursor was enough to get him started.