403 posts in Linked

“Taste” gets invoked constantly in conversations about what AI can’t replace. But it’s often left undefined—a hand-wave toward something ineffable that separates good work from average work.

Yan Liu offers a working definition:

Product taste is the ability to quickly recognize whether something is high quality or not.

That’s useful because it frames taste as judgment, not aesthetics. Can you tell if a feature addresses a real problem? Can you sense what’s off about an AI-generated PRD even when it’s formatted correctly? Can you distinguish short-term growth tactics from long-term product health?

Liu cites Rick Rubin’s formula:

Great taste = Sensitivity × Standards

Sensitivity is how finely you perceive—noticing friction, asking why a screen exists, catching the moment something feels wrong. Standards are your internal reference system for what “good” actually looks like. Both can be trained.

This connects to something Dan Ramsden wrote in his piece on design’s value in product organizations: “taste without a rationale is just an opinion.” Liu’s framework gives taste a rationale. It’s not magic. It’s pattern recognition built through deliberate exposure and reflection.

The closing line is the one that sticks:

The real gap won’t be between those who use AI well and those who don’t. It will be between those who already know what “good” looks like before they ever open an AI tool.

If design’s value isn’t execution—and AI is making that argument harder to resist—then what is it? Dan Ramsden offers a framework I find useful.

He breaks thinking into three types: deduction (drawing conclusions from data), induction (building predictions from patterns), and abduction—generating something new. Design’s unique contribution is abductive thinking:

When we use deduction, we discover users dropping off during a registration flow. Induction might tell us why. Abduction would help us imagine new flows to fix it.

Product managers excel at sense-making (aka “Why?”). Engineers build the thing. Design makes the difference—moving from “what is” to “what could be.”

On AI and the temptation to retreat to “creativity” or “taste” as design’s moat, Ramsden is skeptical:

Some might argue that it comes down to “taste”. I don’t think that’s quite right — taste without a rationale is just an opinion. I think designers are describers.

I appreciate that distinction. Taste without rationale is just preference. Design’s value is translating ideas through increasing levels of fidelity—from sketch to prototype to tested solution—validating along the way.

His definition of design in a product context:

Design is a set of structured processes to translate intent into experiments.

That’s a working definition I can use. It positions design not as the source of ideas (those can come from anywhere, including AI), but as the discipline that manages ideas through validation. The value isn’t in generating the concept—it’s in making it real while managing risk.

This piece cites my own research on the collapse of entry-level design hiring, but it goes further—arguing that AI didn’t cause the crisis. It exposed one that’s been building for over a decade.

Dolphia, writing for UX Collective:

We told designers they didn’t need technical knowledge. Then we eliminated their jobs when they couldn’t influence technical decisions. That’s not inclusion. That’s malpractice.

The diagnosis is correct. The design industry spent years telling practitioners they didn’t need to understand implementation. And now those same designers can’t evaluate AI-generated output, can’t participate in architecture discussions, can’t advocate effectively when technical decisions are being made.

Dolphia’s evidence is damning. When Figma Sites launched, it generated 210 WCAG accessibility violations on demo sites—and designers couldn’t catch it because they didn’t know what to look for:

The paradox crystalizes: tools marketed as democratization require more technical knowledge than traditional workflows, not less.

Where I’d add nuance: the answer isn’t “designers should learn to code.” It’s that designers need to understand the medium they’re designing for. There’s a difference between writing production code and understanding what code does, between implementing a database schema and knowing why data models influence user workflows.

I’ve been rebuilding my own site with AI assistance for over a year now. I can’t write JavaScript from scratch. But I understand enough about static site generation, database trade-offs, and performance constraints to make informed architectural decisions and direct AI effectively. That’s the kind of technical literacy that matters—not syntax, but systems thinking.

In “From Craft to Curation,” I argued that design value is shifting from execution to direction. Dolphia’s piece is the corollary: you can’t provide direction if you don’t understand what you’re directing.

The data from Lenny’s Newsletter’s AI productivity survey showed PMs ranking prototyping as their #2 use case for AI, ahead of designers. Here’s what that looks like in practice.

Figma is now teaching PMs to build prototypes instead of writing PRDs. Using Figma Make, product managers can go from idea to interactive prototype without waiting on design. Emma Webster writing in Figma’s blog:

By turning early directions into interactive, high-fidelity prototypes, you can more easily explore multiple concepts and take ideas further. Instead of spending time writing documentation that may not capture the nuances of a product, prototypes enable you to show, rather than tell.

The piece walks through how Figma’s own PMs use Make for exploration, validation, and decision-making. One PM prototyped a feature flow and ran five user interviews—all within two days. Another used it to workshop scrolling behavior options that were “almost impossible to describe” in words.

The closing is direct about what this means for roles:

In this new landscape, the PMs who thrive will be those who embrace real-time iteration, moving fluidly across traditional role boundaries.

“Traditional role boundaries” being design’s territory.

This isn’t a threat if designers are already operating upstream—defining what to build, not just how it looks. But if your value proposition is “I make the mockups,” PMs now have tools to do that themselves.

The optimistic case for designers in an AI-driven world is that design becomes strategy—defining what to build, not just how it looks. But are designers actually making that shift?

Noam Segal and Lenny Rachitsky, writing for Lenny’s Newsletter, share results from a survey of 1,750 tech workers. The headline is that AI is “overdelivering”—55% say it exceeded expectations, and most report saving at least half a day per week. But the findings by role tell a different story for designers:

Designers are seeing the fewest benefits. Only 45% report a positive ROI (compared with 78% of founders), and 31% report that AI has fallen below expectations, triple the rate among founders.

Meanwhile, founders are using AI to think—for decision support, product ideation, and strategy. They treat it as a thought partner, not a production tool. And product managers are building prototypes themselves:

Compare prototyping: PMs have it at #2 (19.8%), while designers have it at #4 (13.2%). AI is unlocking skills for PMs outside of their core work, whereas designers aren’t seeing the marginal improvement benefits from AI doing their core work.

The survey found that AI helps designers with work around design—research synthesis, copy, ideation—but visual design ranks #8 at just 3.3%. As Segal puts it:

AI is helping designers with everything around design, but pushing pixels remains stubbornly human.

This is the gap. The strategic future is available, but designers aren’t capturing it at the same rate as other roles. The question is why—and what to do about it.

Previously, I linked to Doug O’Laughlin’s piece arguing that UIs are becoming worthless—that AI agents, not humans, will be the primary consumers of software. It’s a provocative claim, and as a designer, I’ve been chewing on it.

Jeff Veen offers the counterpoint. Veen—a design veteran who cofounded Typekit and led products at Adobe—argues that an agentic future doesn’t diminish design. It clarifies it:

An agentic future elevates design into pure strategy, which is what the best designers have wanted all along. Crafting a great user experience is impossible if the way in which the business expresses its capabilities is muddied, vague or deceptive.

This is a more optimistic take than O’Laughlin’s, but it’s rooted in the same observation: when agents strip applications down to their primitives—APIs, CLI commands, raw capabilities, (plus data structures, I’d argue)—what’s left is the truth of what a business actually does.

Veen’s framing through responsive design is useful. Remember “mobile first”? The constraint of the small screen forced organizations to figure out what actually mattered. Everything else was cruft. Veen again:

We came to realize that responsive design wasn’t just about layouts, it was about forcing organizations to confront what actually mattered.

Agentic workflows do the same thing, but more radically. If your product can only be expressed through its API, there’s no hiding behind a slick dashboard or clever microcopy.

His closing question is great:

If an agent used your product tomorrow, what truths would it uncover about your organization?

For designers, this is the strategic challenge. The interface layer may become ephemeral—generated on the fly, tailored to the user, disposable. But someone still has to define what the product is. That’s design work. It’s just not pixel work.

The rise of micro apps describes what’s happening from the bottom up—regular people building their own tools instead of buying software. But there’s a top-down story too: the structural obsolescence of traditional software companies.

Doug O’Laughlin makes the case using a hardware analogy—the memory hierarchy. AI agents are fast, ephemeral memory (like DRAM), while traditional software companies need to become persistent storage (like NAND, or ROM if you’re old school like me). The implication:

Human-oriented consumption software will likely become obsolete. All horizontal software companies oriented at human-based consumption are obsolete.

That’s a bold claim. O’Laughlin goes further:

Faster workflows, better UIs, and smoother integrations will all become worthless, while persistent information, a la an API, will become extremely valuable.

As a designer, this is where I start paying close attention. The argument is that if AI agents become the primary consumers of software—not humans—then the entire discipline of UI design is in question. O’Laughlin names names:

Figma could be significantly disrupted if UIs, as a concept humans create for other humans, were to disappear.

I’m not ready to declare UIs dead. People still want direct manipulation, visual feedback, and the ability to see what they’re doing. But the shift O’Laughlin describes is real: software’s value is migrating from presentation to data. The interface becomes ephemeral—generated on the fly, tailored to the task—while the source of truth persists.

This is what I was getting at in my HyperCard essay: the tools we build tomorrow won’t look like the apps we buy today. They’ll be temporary, personal, and assembled by AI from underlying APIs and data. The SaaS companies that survive will be the ones who make their data accessible to agents, not the ones with the prettiest dashboards.

Almost a year ago, I linked to Lee Robinson’s essay “Personal Software” and later explored why we need a HyperCard for the AI era. The thesis: people would stop searching the App Store and start building what they need. Disposable tools for personal problems.

That future is arriving. Dominic-Madori Davis, writing for TechCrunch, documents the trend:

It is a new era of app creation that is sometimes called micro apps, personal apps, or fleeting apps because they are intended to be used only by the creator (or the creator plus a select few other people) and only for as long as the creator wants to keep the app. They are not intended for wide distribution or sale.

What I find compelling here is the word “fleeting.” We’ve been conditioned to think of software as permanent infrastructure—something you buy, maintain, and eventually migrate away from. But these micro apps are disposable by design. One founder built a gaming app for his family to play over the holidays, then shut it down when vacation ended. That’s not a failed product. That’s software that did exactly what it needed to do.

Howard University professor Legand L. Burge III frames it well:

It’s similar to how trends on social media appear and then fade away. But now, [it’s] software itself.

The examples in the piece range from practical (an allergy tracker, a parking ticket auto-payer) to whimsical (a “vice tracker” for monitoring weekend hookah consumption). But the one that stuck with me was the software engineer who built his friend a heart palpitation logger so she could show her doctor her symptoms. That’s software as a favor. Software as care.

Christina Melas-Kyriazi from Bain Capital Ventures offers what I think is the most useful framing:

It’s really going to fill the gap between the spreadsheet and a full-fledged product.

This is exactly right. For years, spreadsheets have been the place where non-developers build their own tools—janky, functional, held together with VLOOKUP formulas and conditional formatting. Micro apps are the evolution of that impulse, but with real interfaces and actual logic.

The quality concerns are real—bugs, security flaws, apps that only their creator can debug. But for personal tools that handle personal problems, “good enough for one” is genuinely good enough.

Claude Code is having a moment. Anthropic’s agentic coding tool has gone viral over the past few weeks, with engineers and non-engineers alike discovering what it feels like to hand real work over to an AI and watch it execute autonomously. The popular tech podcast Hard Fork has already had two segments on it in the last two weeks. In the first, hosts Kevin Roose and Casey Newton share their Claude Code projects. And in the second, they highlight some from their listeners. (Alas, my Severance fan project did not make the cut.)

I’ve been using Cursor and Claude Code to build and rebuild this site for over a year now, so when I read this piece and see coders describing their experience with it, I understand the feeling.

Bradley Olson (gift link), writing for the Wall Street Journal:

Some described a feeling of awe followed by sadness at the realization that the program could easily replicate expertise they had built up over an entire career.

“It’s amazing, and it’s also scary,” said Andrew Duca, chief executive of Awaken Tax, a cryptocurrency tax platform. Duca has been coding since he was in middle school. “I spent my whole life developing this skill, and it’s literally one-shotted by Claude Code.”

Duca decided not to hire the engineers he’d been planning to bring on. He thinks Claude makes him five times more productive.

The productivity numbers throughout the piece are striking:

Malte Ubl is chief technology officer at Vercel, which helps develop and host websites and apps for users of Claude Code and other such tools. He said he used the tool to finish a complex project in a week that would’ve taken him about a year without AI. Ubl spent 10 hours a day on his vacation building new software and said each run gave him an endorphin rush akin to playing a Vegas slot machine.

But what caught my attention is what people are using it for beyond code—analyzing MRI data, recovering wedding photos from corrupted drives, monitoring tomato plants with a webcam. Olson again:

Unlike most app- or web-bound chatbots now in wide use, it can operate autonomously, with broad access to user files, a web browser and other applications. While technologists have predicted a coming era of AI “agents” capable of doing just about anything for humans, that future has been slow to develop. Using Claude Code was the first time many users interacted with this kind of AI, offering an inkling of what may be in store.

Anthropic took notice of course and launched a beta of Cowork last week.

Instead of the MS-DOS-like “command line” interface that the core app has, Cowork displays a more friendly, graphical user interface. They built the product in about 10 days—using Claude Code.

The closing question is the right one:

“The bigger story here is going to be when this goes beyond software engineering,” said David Hsu, chief executive of Retool, a business-AI startup. Software engineers make up a tiny fraction of the U.S. labor force. “How far does it go?”

Replace “software engineering” with “design” and you have the question I’m exploring this week.

My wife is an obesity medicine and women’s health specialist, so she’s been in my ear talking about ultraprocessed foods for years. That’s why the processed food analogy for AI-generated software resonates. We industrialized agriculture and got abundance, yes—but also obesity, diabetes, and 318 million people still experiencing acute hunger. The problem was never production capacity.

Chris Loy applies this lens to where software is heading:

Industrial systems reliably create economic pressure toward excess, low quality goods. This is not because producers are careless, but because once production is cheap enough, junk is what maximises volume, margin, and reach. The result is not abundance of the best things, but overproduction of the most consumable ones.

Loy introduces the term “disposable software”—software created with no expectation of ownership, maintenance, or long-term understanding. Vibe-coded apps. AI slop. Whatever you want to call it, the economics are different: easy reproducibility means each output has less value, which means volume becomes the only game. Just look in the App Store for any popular category such as todo lists, notetakers, and word puzzles. Or look in r/SaaS and notice the glut of single people building and selling their own products.

Loy goes on to compare this movement with mass-produced fashion as well:

For example, prior to industrialisation, clothing was largely produced by specialised artisans, often coordinated through guilds and manual labour, with resources gathered locally, and the expertise for creating durable fabrics accumulated over years, and frequently passed down in family lines. Industrialisation changed that completely, with raw materials being shipped intercontinentally, fabrics mass produced in factories, clothes assembled by machinery, all leading to today’s world of fast, disposable, exploitative fashion.

Disposable fashion leads to vast overproduction, with estimates that 20–40% (up to 30–60 billion pieces) go unsold. There’s a waste of people’s time, tokens, electricity, and ultimately consumer dollars that AI enables.

The silver lining that Loy observes is in innovation. Entirely human-written code isn’t the answer. It’s doing the necessary research and development to innovate. My take is that’s exactly where designers need to be sitting.

Last December, Cursor announced their visual editor—a way to edit UI directly in the browser. Karri Saarinen, the designer who co-founded Linear, saw it and called it a trap. Ryo Lu, the head of design at Cursor, pushed back. The Twitter back-and-forth went on for a couple days until they conceded they mostly agreed. Tommy Geoco digs into what the debate actually surfaced.

The traditional way we talk about design tools is floor versus ceiling—does the tool make good design more accessible, or does it push what’s possible? Geoco argues the Saarinen/Lu exchange revealed a second axis: unconstrained exploration versus material exploration. Sketching on napkins versus building in code.

Saarinen’s concern:

Whenever a designer becomes more of a builder, some idealism and creativity dies. It’s not because building is bad, but because you start introducing constraints earlier in the process than you should.

Lu’s counter:

The truth only reveals itself once you start to build. Not when you think about building, not when you sketch possibilities in a protected space, but when you actually make the thing real and let reality talk back.

Both are right, and Geoco’s reframing is useful:

The question is not should designers code. It’s are you using the new speed to explore more territory or just arriving at the same destination faster?

That’s the question I keep asking myself. When I use AI tools, am I discovering ideas I wouldn’t have found otherwise, or am I just getting to obvious ideas faster? The tools make iteration cheap, but cheap iteration on the same territory isn’t progress.

I think about it this way—back when I was starting out, sketching thumbnails was the technique I used. It was very quick and easy to sketch out dozens of ideas in a sketchbook, especially when they were logo or poster ideas. When sketching interaction ideas, the technique is closer to a storyboard—connected thumbnails. But for me, once I get into a high-fidelity design or prototype, there is tremendous pull to just keep tweaking the design rather than coming up with multiple options. In other words, convergence is happening rather than continued divergence.

I’ve spent a lot of my product design career pushing for metrics—proving ROI, showing impact, making the case for design in business terms. But I’ve also seen how metrics become the goal rather than a signal pointing toward the goal. When the number goes up, we celebrate. When it doesn’t, we tweak the collection process. Meanwhile, the user becomes secondary. Last week’s big idea was around metrics, this piece piles on.

Pavel Samsonov calls this out:

Managers can only justify their place in value chains by inventing metrics for those they manage to make it look like they are managing.

I’ve sat in meetings where we debated which numbers to report to leadership—not which work to prioritize for users. The metrics become theater. So-called “vanity metrics” that always go up and to the right.

But here’s where Pavel goes somewhere unexpected. He doesn’t let designers off the hook either:

Defining success by a metric of beauty offers a useful kind of vagueness, one that NDS seems to hide behind despite the slow loading times or unnavigability that seem to define their output; you can argue with slow loading times or difficulty finding a form, but you cannot meaningfully argue with “beautiful.”

“Taste” and “beauty” are just another avoidance strategy. That’s a direct challenge to the design discourse that’s been dominant lately—the return to craft, the elevation of aesthetic judgment. Pavel’s saying it’s the same disease, different symptom. Both metrics obsession and taste obsession are ways to avoid the ambiguity of actually defining user success.

So what’s the alternative? Pavel again:

Fundamentally, the work of design is intentionally improving conditions under uncertainty. The process necessarily involves a lot of arguments over the definition and parameters of “improvement”, but the primary barrier to better is definitely not how long it takes to make artifacts.

The work is the argument. The work is facing the ambiguity rather than hiding behind numbers or aesthetics. Neither Figma velocity nor visual polish is a substitute for the uncomfortable conversation about what “better” actually means for the people using your product.

“I want my MTV!” That is the line that many music artists spoke to camera in a famous campaign by George Lois to get fans to call their cable companies to ask for MTV. It worked.

While MTV’s international music-only channels went off the air at the end of 2025, its US channels still exist. They’re just not all-music all the time like it was in the 1980s.

That’s where MTV Rewind comes in. It’s a virtual TV where you can relive MTV programming as it was. Built by an artist going by FlexasaurusRex, it’s an archive of Day 1 programming, and then different channels (YouTube playlists) to shuffle through the different shows, including 120 Minutes.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s State Department font switch is a political signal dressed up as design rationale. At least that’s what Chenyang “Platy” Hsu argues. In her deep dive into the decision and with a detour into the history of certain fonts, Hsu says Times New Roman is a newspaper workhorse made for economy, not ceremony. And many U.S. institutions favor stronger serif families or purpose-built sans-serifs.

Hsu:

…the design and historical reasons cited in Rubio’s memo don’t hold up. The formality and authority of serif typefaces are largely socially constructed, and Times New Roman’s origin story and design constraints don’t express these qualities. If Times New Roman carries authority at all, it’s primarily borrowed from the authority of institutions that have adhered to it. If the sincere goal were to “return to tradition” by returning to a serif, there are many choices with deeper pedigree and more fitting gravitas.

It’s January and by now millions of us have made resolutions and probably broken them already. The second Friday of January is known as “Quitter’s Day.”

OKRs—objectives and key results—are a method for businesses to set and align company goals. The objective is your goal and the KRs are the ways to reach your goals. Venture capitalist John Doerr learned about OKRs while working at Intel, brought it to Google, and later became the framework’s leading evangelist.

Christina Wodtke talks about how to use OKRs for your personal life, and maybe as a way to come up with better New Year’s resolutions. She looked at her past three years of personal OKRs:

Looking at the pattern laid out in front of me, I finally saw what I’d been missing. My problem wasn’t work-life balance. My problem was that I didn’t like the kind of work I was doing.

The key results kept failing because the objective was wrong. It wasn’t about balance. It was about joy.

This is the second thing key results do for you: when they consistently fail, they’re telling you something. Not that you lack discipline—that you might be chasing the wrong goal entirely.

And I love Wodtke’s line here: “New Year’s resolutions fail because they’re wishes, not plans.“ She continues:

They fail because “eat better” and “be healthier” and “find balance” are too vague to act on and too fuzzy to measure.

Key results fix this. Not because measurement is magic, but because the act of measuring forces clarity. It makes you confront what you actually want. And sometimes, when the data piles up, it reveals that what you wanted wasn’t the thing you needed at all.

Building on our earlier link about measuring the impact of features, how can we keep track of the overall health of the product? That’s where a North Star Metric comes in.

Julia Sholtz writes and introduction to North Star Metrics in the analytics provider Amplitude’s blog:

Your North Star Metric should be the key measure of success for your company’s product team. It defines the relationship between the customer problems your product team is trying to solve and the revenue you aim to generate by doing so.

How is it done? The first step is to figure out the “game” your business is playing: how your business engages with customers:

1. The Attention Game: How much time are your customers willing to spend in your product?
2. The Transaction Game: How many transactions does your user make on your platform?
3. The Productivity Game: How efficiently and effectively can someone get their work done in your product?

They have a whole resource section on this topic that’s worth exploring.

How do we know what we designed is working as intended? We measure. Vitaly Friedman shares something called the TARS framework to measure the impact of features.

We need UX metrics to understand and improve user experience. What I love most about TARS is that it’s a neat way to connect customers’ usage and customers’ experience with relevant product metrics.

Here’s TARS in a nutshell:

• Target Audience (%): Measures the percentage of all product users who have the specific problem that a feature aims to solve.
• Adoption (%): Tracks the percentage of the target audience that successfully and meaningfully engages with the feature.
• Retention (%): Assesses how many users who adopted the feature continue to use it repeatedly over time.
• Satisfaction Score (CES): Gauges the level of satisfaction, specifically how easy it was for retained users to solve their problem after using the feature.

Friedman has more details in the article, including how to use TARS to measure how well a feature is performing for your intended target audience.

I really appreciate the perspective of Lai-Jing Chu here as a Silicon Valley veteran. The struggle to prove the value of design is real.

I don’t know another function or role in the tech industry where it seems like we have to do our jobs at the same time as — and I will avoid saying “demonstrating value” here because it’s more than that — we carry out some sort of divine duty to make the product (let alone the world) a better place through our creativity.

Instead of more numbers like ROI calculations, Chu argues for counterintuitive approaches for advocacy, “not more left-brain exercises.”

Chu introduces us to W. Edwards Deming, an influential management consultant who wrote:

The most important figures needed for management of any organization are unknown and unknowable, but successful management must nevertheless take account of them.

One strategy she offers is to ask leadership a common-sense question: How would you grade the design?

Because when was the last time anyone did the most basic thing — to stop for a moment, hold the product in their hands, and take a good hard look at it? These questions throw the ball back in their court. It makes them wonder what they can do to help. Because chances are, most leaders want their product to have a good user or customer experience and understand that it makes a difference to their business success. You don’t just want buy-in — you want them to have true ownership.

I admire this approach, because chances are, leaders are already hearing about UX issues from customers. But to put this into practice in, let’s say, at any startup post-Series A will be an issue. There’s a lot of coordination and alignment that needs to happen because exec-level attention is much harder to come by.

Here is a good reminder from B. Prendergast to “stop asking users what they want—and start watching what they do.”

Asking people what they want is one of the most natural instincts in product work. Surveys, interviews, and feature wish lists feel accessible, social, and collaborative. They open channels to understand and empathise with the user base. They help teams feel closer to the people they serve. For teams under pressure, a stack of opinions can feel like solid data.

But this breaks when we compare what users say to what they actually do (say-do gap).

We all want to present ourselves a certain way. We want to seem more competent than confused (social desirability bias). Our memories can be fuzzy, especially about routine tasks (recall bias). Standards for what feels “easy” or “intuitive” can vary wildly between people (reference bias).

And of course, as soon as we start to ask users to imagine what they’d want, they’ll solve based on their personal experiences—which might be the right solution for them, but might not be for other users in the same situation.

Prendergast goes on to suggest “watch what people do, measure what matters, and use what they say to add context.” This approach involves watching user interactions, analyzing real behaviors through analytics, and treating feature requests as signals of underlying problems to uncover genuine needs. Prioritizing decisions based on observed patterns and desired outcomes leads to more effective solutions than relying on user opinions alone.

Product manager Adrian Raudaschl offered some reflections on 2025 from his point of view. It’s a mixture of life advice, product recommendations, and thoughts about the future of tech work.

The first quote I’ll pull out is this one, about creativity and AI:

Ultimately, if we fail to maintain active engagement with the creative process and merely delegate tasks to AI without reflection, there is a risk that delegation becomes abdication of responsibility and authorship.

”Active engagement” with the tasks that we delegate to AI. This reminds me of the humble machines argument by Dr. Maya Ackerman.

On vibe coding:

The most important thing, I think, that most people in knowledge work should be doing is learning to vibe code. Vibe code anything: a diary, a picture book for your mum, a fan page for your local farm. Anything. It’s not about learning to code, but rather appreciating how much more we could do with machines than before. This is what I mean about the generalist product manager: being able to prototype, test, and build without being held back by technical constraints.

I concur 100%. Even if you don’t think you’re a developer, even if you don’t quite understand code, vibe coding something will be illuminating. I think it’s different than asking ChatGPT for a bolognese sauce recipe or how to change a tire. Building something that will instantly run on your computer and seeing the adjustments made in real-time from your plain English prompts is very cool and gives you a glimpse into how LLMs problem-solve.

Yesterday, Anthropic launched Cowork, a research preview that is essentially Claude Code but for non-coders.

From the blog announcement:

How is using Cowork different from a regular conversation? In Cowork, you give Claude access to a folder of your choosing on your computer. Claude can then read, edit, or create files in that folder. It can, for example, re-organize your downloads by sorting and renaming each file, create a new spreadsheet with a list of expenses from a pile of screenshots, or produce a first draft of a report from your scattered notes.

In Cowork, Claude completes work like this with much more agency than you’d see in a regular conversation. Once you’ve set it a task, Claude will make a plan and steadily complete it, while looping you in on what it’s up to. If you’ve used Claude Code, this will feel familiar—Cowork is built on the very same foundations. This means Cowork can take on many of the same tasks that Claude Code can handle, but in a more approachable form for non-coding tasks.

Apparently, Cowork was built very quickly using—naturally—Claude Code. Michael Nuñez in VentureBeat:

…according to company insiders, the team built the entire feature in approximately a week and a half, largely using Claude Code itself.

Alas, this is only available to Claude Max subscribers ($100–200 per month). I will need to check it out when it’s more widely available.

AI threatens to let product teams ship faster. Faster PRDs, faster designs, and faster code. But going too fast can often lead to incurring design and tech debt, or even worse, shipping the wrong thing.

Anton Sten sagely warns:

The biggest pattern I have seen across startups is that skipping clarity never saves time. It costs time. The fastest teams are not the ones shipping the most. They are the ones who understand why they are shipping. That is the difference between moving for the sake of movement and moving with purpose. It is the difference between speed and true velocity.

How do you avoid this? Sten:

The reset is simple and almost always effective. Before building anything, pause long enough to ask, “What problem am I solving, and for whom?” It sounds basic, but this question forces alignment. It replaces assumptions with clarity and shifts attention back to the user instead of internal preferences. When teams do this consistently, the entire atmosphere changes. Decisions become easier. Roadmaps make more sense. People contribute more of themselves. You can feel momentum return.

“Size of Life” is a fun comparison of the different sizes of living things by Neal Agarwal and illustrated by Julius Csotonyi. In case you don’t know the Agarwal, he’s created a dazzling collection of fun/funny minisites. Reminds me of “Powers of Ten” by Charles and Ray Eames.

Graphic designer Emily Sneddon performed some impressive typographic anthropology to digitize the font used on San Francisco’s MUNI light rail cars. She tracked down the original engineer who worked on the destination display signs for a company called Trans-Lite.

Sneddon, on her blog:

Learning that the alphabet came from an engineer really explains its temperament and why I was drawn to it in the first place. The signs were designed for sufficiency: fixed segments, fixed grid, and no extras. Characters were created only as destinations required them, while other characters, like the Q, X, and much of the punctuation, were never programmed into the signs. In reducing everything to its bare essentials, somehow character emerged, and it’s what inspired me to design Fran Sans.

Echoing my series on the design talent crisis and other articles warning against the practice of cutting back on junior talent, Vaughn Tan offers yet another dimension: subjective decision-making skills are only honed through practice. But the opportunities given to junior staff for this type of decision-making are slim.

But to back up, here’s Tan explaining what subjective decision-making is:

These are decisions where there’s no one “correct” answer and the answers that work can’t be known in advance. Subjective decisionmaking requires critical thinking skills to make strongly reasoned arguments, identify appropriate evidence, understand the tradeoffs of different arguments, make decisions that may (or may not) be correct, and develop compelling narratives for those decisions.

While his article isn’t about AI nor is it about companies not hiring juniors, it is about companies not developing juniors and allowing them to practice this type of decision-making in low-stakes situations.

Critical thinking and judgment require practice. Practice needs to be frequent, and needs to begin at a low level with very few consequences that are important. This small-scale training in subjective decisionmaking and critical thinking is the best way to learn how to do it properly in more consequential situations.

If you wait until someone is senior to teach judgment, their first practice attempts have serious consequences. High-stakes decisionmaking pressure cannot be simulated realistically; learning how to deal with it requires actual practice with real consequences that progressively increases in scope and consequentiality.

And why is this all important? Not developing junior staff means there will be a bottleneck issue—only seniors can make these judgement calls—and one day, there will be a succession problem, i.e., who takes over when the seniors leave or retire.