462 posts tagged with “ai”

Alex Harper, writing for Web Designer Depot, describes the new baseline for web design work:

For decades, a significant portion of a web designer’s value was tied to the act of building: moving pixels in Figma, translating those pixels into CSS, ensuring the flexbox behaved, and troubleshooting why a specific button looked “off” in Safari.

But with the arrival of high-fidelity “Agentic UI” and the rise of what industry insiders are calling “Vibe Coding,” the barrier between a thought and a fully functional interface has effectively vanished.

Today, a founder can speak into a prompt—”Give me a high-end, minimalist FinTech landing page with a Swiss-style grid and a sense of ‘quiet luxury’ using deep emerald tones”—and receive a production-ready, accessible, and responsive site in seconds.

This is the AI design conversation with dollars attached. Once a small business owner can get a polished page for almost nothing, “pretty page” stops carrying much economic value.

Harper describes the commodity pressure as a loop:

The primary problem with Vibe Coding is that AI, by its very nature, is a statistical engine. It generates the most “probable” result based on your prompt. If you ask for a “Modern Minimalist” site, the AI isn’t going to innovate; it’s going to give you a composite of every modern minimalist site it has ever seen.

This creates a Feedback Loop of Averageness. 

1. Designers use AI to generate “vibey” layouts. 2. These layouts are published and become part of the web. 3. Future AI models are trained on these new layouts. 4. The aesthetic “mean” becomes tighter and tighter.

Designers have to take that feedback loop seriously. While the taste in the models are slowly getting better, AI nudges taste toward whatever the training set keeps rewarding. Notice a lot more serif fonts online recently?

That’s why “clean and professional” worries me less as a style than as a business model: if everyone gets the same acceptable answer for almost no money, the designer’s value moves into judgment, story, and constraints.

Harper adds:

To survive the Vibe Coding crisis, designers have to move away from the “Vibe” and toward the “Mechanism.”

If the “look” of a website is now a commodity, where does a designer provide value? The answer lies in the areas that AI still struggles to grasp: Nuance, Narrative, and Friction.

AI can create a page that looks like a brand, but it cannot yet build a page that feels like a story. Vibe Coding creates “scrollytelling” templates, but it doesn’t understand the emotional arc of a user journey. A human designer understands that a specific user might need to feel “uncomfortable” or “challenged” at a certain point in the flow to make a realization. AI only knows how to please.

An AI can generate a screen, but can it generate a philosophy? Designing a design system in 2026 isn’t about making components; it’s about defining the “Ethics of Interaction.” How does this brand handle data privacy through UI? How does it signal inclusivity without being performative? These are high-level strategic decisions that a “vibe” prompt cannot solve.

Jason Cyr, writing at The Human in the Loop, starts with the AI-design conversation’s taste claim and points to the work teams need before agents start producing anything:

There’s a popular narrative that design’s value in the age of AI is taste — the human eye that says “not that, this.” I think that undersells us. Taste matters. But what organizations actually need from design right now is clarity. The ability to wade through ambiguity, make invisible systems legible, and give teams something they can act on. That’s always been the real (often under-appreciated) superpower, and AI just made it an urgent need.

Cyr’s earlier piece on agentic-era design teams covered the move from making outputs to directing work. Here, he describes the coordination layer that had been hiding inside the old process:

The old product development process had shock absorbers we never realized. Meetings where people quietly aligned on things that were never written down. Hallway conversations that resolved ambiguity nobody had formally surfaced. Design reviews that were really translation sessions — designers decoding what product actually meant, engineers decoding what designers actually intended. PMs who held critical context in their heads and dispensed it as needed.

None of this was in any process document. It was human labour — invisible, unacknowledged — absorbing the ambiguity that the formal process couldn’t handle.

We called it process, but it was actually a buffer.

Cyr puts that clarity work inside design leadership:

Here’s the thing about this problem: it’s not a tooling gap. It’s not a project management gap. It’s a clarity gap.

Design earns its seat at the table when it moves beyond artifacts and starts shaping how a product organization delivers work. Not just the screens. Not just the system. The operating model itself — who decides what, when something is ready, how context travels, and what “good enough” means at each stage.

Fabrizia Ausiello, writing for UX Collective, uses Apple’s Liquid Glass transparency slider to ask who is supposed to make interface judgment calls:

Apple just introduced a transparency slider for its Liquid Glass UI — a control that lets users dial up or down the translucency of system elements. On the surface, it’s a thoughtful accessibility gesture (especially considering the criticism that Liquid Glass has accumulated), but in practice, it’s the manifestation of a deeper tension that designers have been circling for years: when you give users a knob, are you empowering them or just finishing your job somewhere more convenient?

Ausiello on the older design assumption that users shouldn’t have to make these calls:

For most of the history of digital product design, designers have been making decisions so users don’t have to. We studied, tested, iterated, and then shipped something that worked. Interface design is opinionated because it has to be.

It might sound arrogant, but it really isn’t, it’s simply part of the craft that’s baked into the role. The whole point of a well-designed system is that it removes cognitive load; the moment you ask a non-technical user to evaluate the “level of transparency” of their interface, you’ve already failed them because they don’t have a mental model for it, they just want to read their notifications.

I agree. As designers, we should be making this call. Ausiello turns the same question back on us:

If you work in digital product design, this moment is worth paying attention to for the precedent that it’s setting.

As AI takes over the execution layer — generating screens, producing variants, handling repetitive interface decisions — the value of a designer is shifting and the role that remains is the harder one: understanding the problem deeply enough to know which decisions shouldn’t be delegated at all.

Some things should be personalised, some should not, and knowing the difference, having the conviction to hold that line, is a skill needed and worth having. Dumping a slider in onboarding isn’t personalisation — it’s a designer who didn’t finish their job.

The future of adaptive interfaces is exciting, but getting there doesn’t mean abandoning judgment in the present. It should mean being more deliberate about which decisions belong to the system, which belong to the user, and which belong to you.

Interestingly, Ausiello also gives Apple an out. That maybe, Apple is playing the long game here and gathering data to make personalization more automatic in the future. The author again:

The reasoning goes roughly like this: we don’t need to commit to a specific default, because the AI will figure out the right setting for each user eventually. Siri will learn your preferences and you’ll just ask it to make things more readable and it’ll handle the rest. Seen from this perspective, the slider isn’t a UI failure, but rather an early, manual version of something that will eventually be automatic.

Honestly, I think it’s a bit of a stretch. Nice thought exercise though.

Amber Bouabdallah, writing in UX Collective, gets at the learning problem lots of designers are facing in this AI transition: the tools don’t produce one shared path toward competence.

Bouabdallah draws the line between deterministic software training and relational AI practice here:

Traditional software training works because the tools are deterministic. You learn where the buttons are, what the shortcuts do, how the system behaves when you click the thing. Mastery, in that world, converges — everyone arrives at roughly the same competence, following roughly the same path, and you can write a training deck for it. Mastery means knowing the tool’s correct use.

AI tools break that definition. Maggie Appleton — designer and anthropologist, now at GitHub Next — gave a talk in 2023 called “Squish Meets Structure” about designing products with language models, and the line from it that I love is her description of the magic-input box: it has “no affordances,” “no knobs or door handles.” The interface, she writes, “offloads a ton of cognitive labour to the user.” There is no correct use to learn. The tool meets you where you are. Which means what you bring to it — your instincts, your mental models, your accumulated taste, your willingness to iterate, your custom claude.md files — is the tool, as much as the model is.

So mastery hasn’t disappeared. It has shifted. With deterministic software, mastering the tool meant converging on its logic. With AI tools, mastering one means the opposite: learning to bend it toward your logic. Tailoring it to how you already want to work. Mastering an AI tool is the craft of making it amplify the specific strengths and experience you bring — so the work that comes out is sharper, and unmistakably yours. That kind of mastery is real, and hard-won, and worth teaching toward. It is just personal rather than universal. Divergent rather than convergent. Everyone’s version of it should look different, because everyone’s version is built out of a different person.

Her Salesforce examples keep that from becoming an abstract tool-training claim:

Six months in, Ningdan and I had designed for tool adoption and accidentally created conditions for something more intimate. Seeing each other work. Seeing the specific choices someone makes when the tool doesn’t behave, the workarounds they’ve invented, the mental models they’ve constructed to make sense of something genuinely new. A window into someone’s thinking — and into how each person was mastering these tools in a shape no one else’s would match.

And once you can see the thinking, you can see the worry too. Amanda Harris, a User Experience Architect on our team, named a tension directly in the post-mortem: “I worry that we’ll lose the exploratory aspects of finding what’s wrong with an idea by jumping so quickly into hi-fi prototyping.” That’s not resistance to new tools. That’s a designer protecting something she knows matters. Hearing it voiced — in a room where everyone is nominally learning the same things — is only possible in a setting small enough and safe enough for honest uncertainty.

The anxiety designers are feeling is a signal, not a weakness.

And Bouabdallah closes by naming the training layer her team actually designed:

The tools will keep changing. They will keep arriving faster than any module can be written, any best practice can be documented, any official curriculum can ratify. It is tempting to treat the peer layer as a bridge — something to lean on until the real training arrives. But the real training is not coming, because there is no fixed competence to train people toward. As long as the tools keep moving, the peer layer isn’t the bridge. It’s the ground.

We did design how designers master AI. We just found that mastery wasn’t what we thought it would be. Not a competence everyone arrives at, but a practice each person builds — bending a generic tool toward their own strengths, their own experience, their own way of working, until the work it helps them make is sharper and theirs.

Nicole Alexandra Michaelis, catalogs the job titles opening up as AI takes over the production work. Titles like “AI Design Consultant” (aka forward deployed designer), “Agentic UX Architect,” and “Trust Designer.”

These new titles are flashy, as she says, and I’m wary of crazy titles as I believe “designer” is a good catch-all. Michaelis seems to agree:

The “Product Designer” used to be the top of the crop, working with content designers, motion designers, UI designers, service designers, and more. But all of these titles had one thing in common: deeply strategic design thinking. While product design was often treated as the most T-shaped profile amongst designers, I always believed any (good) designer could shift in and out of skills and ways of working quickly, independent of their specific title.

The constant she identifies—deeply strategic design thinking—is the job; the titles are what we print on the business card in any given season. I’ve watched these labels multiply over the years, and the strong designers always moved between them regardless of title.

Take the Trust Designer:

The Trust Designer focuses entirely on transparency. They translate complex cryptographic or algorithmic verification into instant, split-second visual signals. They design the metadata tags, watermark indicators, and explainability mechanisms that show consumers exactly why an AI recommended a specific product or how a piece of media was verified.

The work here is genuinely needed. Translating something invisible—verification, provenance—into a split-second signal a human can trust is design at its core, not pixel-pushing. This is the part worth taking seriously, regardless of what we call the person doing it, or that it’s its own full-time job.

Michaelis again:

Ultimately, this shift is incredibly empowering for the creative community. The lesson of the AI age isn’t “learn to code or get replaced.” It is that design is moving away from the mechanics of pixel production and shifting heavily toward cognitive psychology, systems thinking, and business orchestration. And I would argue, most of us loved that part of the work most anyway.

She’s right about where the work is heading, and the only thing I’d watch is the title proliferation. The strategic judgment underneath is the same craft it’s always been, whatever we end up calling it.

The AI job grief piece was about what happens when old roles stop feeling stable. Sarah Gibbons, writing for Nielsen Norman Group, gets at the next question: what are we actually supposed to call the new work?

When someone says “AI design,” everyone in the room pictures something different.

One person is thinking about using AI to generate component variations for a design system. Another is designing a chat interface. A third is structuring data so an AI agent can parse it. A fourth is defining an LLM’s behavior.

They all fall under “AI design” but they are not the same work.

I see this in job postings, LinkedIn posts, and conference talks. Someone says, “We need to figure out our AI design strategy,” and every person at the table nods — while imagining a completely different thing. Six months later, everyone’s frustrated because the “AI-design initiative” was not what they expected. 

The conversation around AI and design is forking. What used to be a single (admittedly vague) topic has split into at least four distinct orientations. Each one focuses on a different type of design work, sits in different organizational structures, and uses different definitions of what “good” looks like. Most teams are staffed for only one of these orientations, confused about which one they’re doing, or trying to dance between all of them without realizing it.

Gibbons’s agent-facing category moves the taxonomy beyond the human interface:

This one is going to feel like a departure from user experience. Stay with me.

In this type of work, you design content, data, or interactions that AI agents (not humans) will read, parse, or act on. You’re building the infrastructure that autonomous systems navigate. If AI agents are the self-driving cars, you’re designing the roads, the signage, and the lane markings. AI agents are your users.

That might mean structuring product data so a shopping agent can compare options on behalf of a user, writing instructions that an AI assistant will follow, or optimizing content for AI search and discovery instead of (or in addition to) human search and discovery.

Some of this infrastructure won’t even be human-readable. A road sign designed for AI-controlled vehicles might encode information in ways no human driver could parse — data transmitted via radio or embedded in nonvisible parts of the spectrum. The “user” of that sign is an agent, and the design constraints are entirely different.

This is the orientation most design teams are still ignoring, but mostly because many organizations don’t have anyone explicitly responsible for how AI agents experience their product. Which means it’s either not happening, or it’s happening by accident inside an engineering team with no design input.

Designing for AI agents matters because it involves design decisions. What data gets exposed? How is it structured? What can an agent do versus what requires human confirmation? These shape the end-user experience just as much as any interface, they’re just one layer removed.

She then ties that category shift to the market for design expertise:

Understanding which type of AI design you’re building expertise in matters because the market is moving fast. Right now,  few designers have deep experience across multiple orientations. However, this window won’t stay open for long. Within a year, many more designers will have meaningful AI experience. Those who build depth in a specific direction now will have a significant advantage over those who stay broadly “AI-adjacent.”

Here’s where the field is right now:

Most designers today are using AI as a tool in their workflow. A growing number are designing AI products and features. Very few are designing for AI agents or designing the AI itself.

The demand for those last two is growing. The supply of designers who understand them barely exists. So, if you’re a designer, its an opportunity gap that’s widening.

Jack Maguire writes about AI displacement as a grief problem, not only a labor-market problem:

Knowledge workers hold a different relationship to their labor than manufacturing workers did. For a cognitive professional, expertise is not only an activity. It is a large part of the self. A data scientist who has spent a decade building statistical judgment does not experience that judgment as a detachable tool. It is closer to a personality trait. When automation threatens the work, it reaches past the income and touches the identity.

I can certainly relate—my profession is my identity and sense of self, unhealthy as that may be.

Maguire on disenfranchised grief and AI layoffs:

Even where grief exists, workers are denied social permission to feel it, and the denial makes the grief worse.

The relevant concept is disenfranchised grief, a term coined by the grief researcher Kenneth Doka for loss that is not acknowledged or socially supported. As one accessible summary puts it, disenfranchised grief is “grief that is not acknowledged or socially supported, often because the loss does not conform to societal expectations of what should be mourned.” When a loss is not recognized by others, the grieving process stalls, and the grief stays “hidden and unresolved.”

Tech layoffs are engineered to produce exactly this condition. They are framed as strategic pivots, restructurings, and efficiency measures. The language is designed to read as ordinary corporate hygiene, and it forecloses mourning by refusing to name a loss at all. There is no ritual for the end of a profession, no obituary for a career, and no socially sanctioned grief leave for the worker who has watched the meaning drain out of work that technically still pays.

The default cultural model for grief still tends to be the five stages of grief, popularized by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Maguire’s point is that AI displacement does not behave like a bounded loss moving toward acceptance:

The Kübler-Ross framework assumes that acceptance is reachable, because the loss it was built to describe is finite. When a person dies, the absence becomes permanent. The bereaved adjusts to a stable, if painful, new reality. Acceptance is possible because there is something fixed to accept.

AI displacement does not offer a fixed endpoint. The process is ongoing and accelerating, with no stable post-AI equilibrium to adapt to. A worker who retrains into the safe role of this year may find that role automated within two years. There is no permanent absence to grieve, only a moving frontier. Workers are being asked to accept a process rather than an outcome, and the process keeps advancing.

Apple’s developer conference WWDC kicked off on Monday with a keynote. They announced various OS improvements, including refinements to Liquid Glass, and most importantly, a revamped AI strategy.

In the days leading up to the keynote, longtime Mac journalist Jason Snell wrote about building his first Mac app with Claude Code in just a couple of hours. We’ve heard this story before. We’ve been talking about it here for months. And yet, here’s a veteran technologist who’s just now discovering Claude Code’s power and building an app.

It’s easy to get caught up in the Silicon Valley AI hype bubble and think the whole world has changed and is using AI for everything. But no, that’s not actually the case.

Snell on what the experience actually required:

The process of building the app reinforced something I’ve been thinking about for quite a while: coding is a specific skill, but it’s only one part of a much larger process. Great developers aren’t necessarily great coders, though they can be. Apps must be envisioned, their specifications defined. The act of trying to describe an app to an AI coding engine is a clarifying one. The more you describe the app, the harder your brain has to work, because it’s always more complicated than you think it’s going to be. The decisions you make determine what the app comes to be. […]

Yup, tell me about it. Tell us product builders about it! The code was never the hard part.

Where I’d push back is on the optimism around it:

We now live in an era where, if you can dream an app, you can probably build it. Especially Mac utilities. And who cares more about native Mac software than Mac users? Certainly not those companies that gave up on Mac development and focused all their energies on giant cross-platform code bases to attract venture investment and big payouts.

Snell himself calls his app “ugly and incomplete” a paragraph earlier, so “if you can dream it, you can build it” is a bit of a stretch. The gap between a thing that runs and a thing you’d ship is where the real work lives: envisioning, deciding, refining.

And it’s a reminder of where the next barrier sits. Snell ends on the tooling:

Which brings me to a final point: Apple’s development tools, most notably Xcode, are nightmarish. My developer friends are used to them, but as someone who has never really used Xcode before, I was shocked at just how deeply unintuitive it is. As in, Claude would tell me to click on things, and I would have to reply, “I have no idea what that is or where it’s supposed to be.” And I’ve been a Mac user for a long time! I’ve gotten very good at intuiting where stuff is in a Mac interface.

[…]

While AI tools have made it more possible to build apps on Apple’s platforms, the developer tools themselves are still a formidable barrier. As the definition of “developer” changes, so, too, must the definition of developer tools.

I wholeheartedly agree with Snell that Xcode is a mess. For those like me who only open it on occasion, it’s baffling that Apple developers live with such a nutty application. Take a look at the best of Apple’s first-party apps like Keynote, Final Cut, or even Numbers, and Xcode is just…bizarre.

Apple did announce something at WWDC 2026 that was interesting—that nods to where they could go if they wanted to—users can ask Siri AI to vibecode Shortcuts and Safari extensions. Will have to see if that’s the seed for something.

Arpan Patel wrote a nice consolidated Claude Code reference: the directory layout, CLAUDE.md the way Anthropic’s Boris Cherny writes it, skills, subagents, MCPs, the underused commands. The whole guide turns on one shift:

Claude Code clicked for me once I quit treating it like ChatGPT in a terminal. The mental model flipped from “I need to write this code” to “I need to set Claude up to write this code well.” Setup is the work. Execution is verification.

If you use Claude Code daily, bookmark it.

Emma Webster, writing for Figma, argues that AI tools are pulling prototyping earlier in the product process: teams can validate with more fidelity, then carry design context forward instead of recreating it at handoff.

Product teams are rapidly adapting to the new way of working in the AI era. They’re prototyping before writing specs, testing in code before designing, exploring at unprecedented scale, and shipping with design system context that used to get lost in the handoff. We talked to product builders at FloQast, Merkle, Affirm, and Accor about how that’s playing out in practice.

The shift is about when the hard questions show up. Specs used to be the artifact that let teams pretend they had alignment. The team behind Claude Design skipped the PRD entirely and prototyped its way to the answer instead. With AI tools, a prototype can become the first serious question: does this flow hold up when the data, logic, motion, and system constraints are present?

Webster describes the code-to-canvas loop this way:

Testing an idea against intricate constraints—things like multi-step flows where one action triggers the next, or interfaces that behave differently depending on the data behind them—used to require significant developer investment. Today, AI coding tools have made it possible for more people on a product team to quickly build and test these kinds of interactions before committing to a direction. That’s opened up a new workflow. A product builder can create a working prototype in code, then move it onto the Figma canvas using Codex to Figma to see the full picture and refine it together. From there, if more work needs to happen in code, they can move back via MCP with the design context intact.

This is the version of AI-assisted design I care about. Not “prompt a shiny UI from a blank page.” A working model becomes the place where designers, PMs, and engineers can see the same problem at once. Figma is still the canvas for style exploration and visualizing complex flows, but the decision surface is becoming more product-shaped.

That matters because prototype fidelity changes what a team is allowed to learn. A flat mockup can test preference and comprehension. A working prototype can test sequencing, edge cases, permissions, motion, and whether the idea survives contact with real constraints. Bringing that earlier into the process should make design less speculative, not less thoughtful.

The Accor example shows why this matters before anyone commits to a build:

Justine opened Figma Make and prototyped something she wouldn’t have had time to build by hand—a webpage that reorganizes itself based on what the user types. Search for “golf” and the page reshapes around properties with golf courses, curated outings, and relevant experiences. Make handled the micro-interactions and transitions, and the Figma MCP server kept everything connected to the brand’s design system. Within days, she had a working prototype ambitious enough to show leadership what was possible—and concrete enough to start a real conversation about what to build next.

Webster’s Affirm example carries the same logic all the way into production:

A PM prototyped the badge variations in Figma Make—going from idea to working prototype in two days instead of the usual six weeks. Designers refined the winning direction on the canvas, and when the team was ready to move that design into production, they loaded the design artifacts into the Figma MCP server and connected it to Cursor. MCP passed the components, tokens, and layout structure directly into the coding environment, where an AI agent generated the front-end implementation. Developers used that as their starting point, building production code that already reflected the designs instead of reinterpreting them from scratch.

Preserving components, tokens, and layout structure turns the prototype into a rehearsal for the real build. It has enough fidelity to expose bad directions early and enough context to keep the winning direction from being rebuilt from memory.

Simon Willison thinks the AI labs have found product-market fit. Here’s his own monthly usage priced at API rates against the $200 he actually pays:

• $1,199.79 for Anthropic Claude Code
• $980.37 for OpenAI Codex

That’s $2,180.16 worth of tokens for $200—not bad at all! I’m a moderately heavy user of these tools, but I’m certainly not running agents every hour of the day and night.

That discount is gone: since April 2026 enterprises pay full API rates. Willison’s read:

Coding agents really did change everything. These are tools which burn vastly more tokens, but are also quickly becoming daily drivers for the work carried out by extremely well-compensated professionals. Right now that’s still mostly software engineers, but a coding agent is a tool that can automate anything you can do by typing commands into a computer… so they are clearly applicable to a much wider set of skilled knowledge workers.

Right now the bill falls on engineers. Designers may be next. Anthropic has already rolled out a separate usage meter for Claude Design. And Figma is charging for AI usage overages.

Mozilla.ai’s Alejandro Gonzalez asks a useful question for designers working through agent-native software: what is the agent actually editing in the first place?

He starts with Claude Design but the piece is really about the old software contract underneath most productivity tools:

Most human-computer interaction has been built around two patterns: issuing commands (typing, clicking, speaking) and manipulating representations (dragging, resizing, arranging, formatting). Every productivity tool ever built is designed around one or both of those. The keyboard, the mouse, the touchscreen. That is the full vocabulary. The interface and the product were, for practical purposes, the same thing.

This is a useful distinction for designers because it doesn’t treat UI as decoration. It treats UI as a historical compromise: the thing humans needed in order to reach the state underneath. Agents put pressure on that compromise because they don’t need the same surface.

Gonzalez is careful about the transition, though:

This is useful. More than useful, it is probably necessary. The world already runs on existing software. Companies have years of organizational knowledge embedded in Gmail, Slack, Jira, Salesforce, Notion. If agents are going to be helpful today, they need to work inside that world.

That is the bridge.

But the bridge is not the destination. Agents using existing apps help bring AI into the current software stack. Apps built for agents may change the shape of the stack itself.

And there is something more valuable in that process than just short-term utility. Watching where agents struggle with existing interfaces, where the translation between intent and UI operation is most painful, is probably the most honest way to find where the structural opportunity is. The friction is the signal.

The agent failing to use a legacy screen isn’t only a product bug; it may be a map of where the product’s abstraction is wrong. For design teams, that shifts the work from polishing the path through a tool to naming the real object of work.

Gonzalez’s product-strategy example makes that abstraction concrete:

The source of truth for a product strategy is not the slide deck, the roadmap doc, the ticket board, or the dashboard. It is the strategy itself: the goals, the bets, the risks, the owners, the metrics, the decisions. Everything else is a view. The memo, the board deck, the launch checklist, the customer brief are renderings of the same underlying object, shaped for different audiences.

A product launch is not a Notion doc, a Linear project, a slide deck, and a dashboard. It is a product launch.

In Gonzalez’s framing, the deliverable is no longer the deck, the board, or the dashboard. The durable thing is the structured model that can be rendered, checked, diffed, approved, and exported.

That is the part that changes the designer’s job. If the source of truth is a structured object instead of a visible artifact, then design has to specify the object: its fields, constraints, permissions, states, failure modes, and views. The screen becomes one projection among many. A human may need a deck, an agent may need a schema, a manager may need a dashboard, and the system needs a versioned record of what changed. Those are not separate products if they are all renderings of the same underlying thing.

Gonzalez closes by keeping the old tools in the frame:

The old tools will not vanish quickly. They have distribution, habits, enterprise contracts, file compatibility, and decades of user training on their side. But the center of gravity moves. The work happens in the agent-native system. The legacy app receives the export.

I do not think this transition will be clean. The old world will remain around us for a long time. People will still export PowerPoint files, update spreadsheets, paste things into email, and manage work through tools that were designed before any of this existed.

But that feels increasingly like a transitional phase.

The more interesting future is not only agents operating apps. It is applications designed so agents, humans, and existing tools can all work with the same underlying objects.

Not because every app disappears but because the source of truth may move.

Jakob Nielsen starts from OpenAI’s new $4 billion consulting arm and its acquihire of 150 Forward Deployed Engineers, the kind who embed with a client instead of building from headquarters. His argument is that they solve the wrong level of the problem: you can speed up the work without changing it. The missing counterpart he proposes is the Forward Deployed Designer.

Nielsen draws the line between faster individual work and a faster business:

With AI, the old workflows must no longer be treated as the design brief; they must be questioned at the root. AI is, in fact, a great productivity enhancer even when used in the traditional way to increase the efficiency of individual employees performing the same tasks as always, just faster and better. A paralegal can summarize a legal brief in seconds; a junior developer can write boilerplate code instantly; a digital marketer can generate campaign copy with a single prompt. We can typically improve that employee’s performance on those specific rote tasks by roughly 40%.

But at the company-wide level, such local productivity gains rarely translate into substantial profit gains and shareholder value. When you have a long chain of steps and optimize only a few, the delay simply shifts to the remaining steps, which will dominate the overall time to solve the underlying problem.

Nielsen again:

Once AI removes the cognitive bottleneck, a different bottleneck appears: authority. The limiting question becomes not “Can the system know what to do?” but “Is the system allowed to do it?” AI-native workflow design must therefore redesign decision rights, escalation rules, audit trails, and accountability boundaries. Otherwise, the organization merely replaces slow human cognition with fast machine recommendations waiting for the same old human permission structure.

Design leaders spend a lot of time telling teams to experiment with AI. Nathan Lavertue, a Design Program Director for IBM Z and LinuxONE, turns that advice back on leadership itself:

We spend a lot of time helping designers understand how to work with AI. The question I keep coming back to is simpler. How many of us are doing the same for ourselves in ways that meaningfully support the business?

So instead of just encouraging my teams to experiment with AI tools, I put myself in the work. I built a design program signals website using IBM Bob. What started as a wireframe to sketch out an idea became something I realized I could actually build myself. That surprise is the whole story.

I appreciate the reciprocity here. If designers are being asked to work through this shift in public, leadership cannot treat AI as a strategy deck it reviews from a comfortable distance. You cannot build useful judgment about these tools by asking other people to absorb the uncertainty for you. That is why I’ve been reading about them, writing about them, and experimenting with them on my own. Whether it’s OpenClaw, Hermes, running a local LLM, ComfyUI, or Claude Design, curiosity is key here.

The interesting part of Lavertue’s example is not that he made a dashboard. Dashboards are cheap. The useful part is that he used AI to make a leadership problem legible enough to discuss. His signals site pulled together team health and business impact, then sorted indicators into required, expected, and optional categories so the absence of a signal became something to interpret, not just a blank cell to punish.

Lavertue is clear about this:

I had to remind myself of that more than once while building it. The signals site was useful. Bob was a capable collaborator. But the risk with any tool that comes together quickly is mistaking the build for the point. The site was never the outcome. It was infrastructure for conversations. Design’s impact on the business was the outcome. Keeping that distinction clear required the same discipline I would ask of any designer getting excited about a new tool.

The site did not replace leadership judgment. It grounded it. Instead of reacting to delayed updates or anecdotal signals, I could engage teams with shared context and a clearer ability to look forward rather than back. This was another form of walking the walk. Not just encouraging teams to work differently but building the system that made that work visible and meaningful.

That feels like the better bar for AI-native leadership. Not “leaders should code now.” Not “every management problem needs a custom tool.” The bar is whether leaders are willing to put their own work through the same change they are asking from their teams.

Felipe A. Carriço, a UX designer and AI product builder, turns accessibility guidance into context AI coding agents have to follow with A11Y.md:

A11Y.md is not a guideline. It is an accessibility validation protocol and a persistent context architecture for developing accessible software with AI. It is designed to integrate with AI agent systems and human review workflows to ensure certifiable compliance.

By adopting the mental model of Anthropic’s CLAUDE.md—which acts as a system prompt memory for code generation—A11Y.md translates this architecture into a universal, portable governance layer. Instead of generic coding rules, it forces any coding agent (Claude, Cursor, Copilot) to strictly adhere to WCAG 2.2 AA and ADA standards from the very first line of generated UI code.

I appreciate how operational this is. It pairs well with Joost de Valk’s Website Specification, which treats machine-readable standards as part of what a good site does. A11Y.md brings the same idea into the build process: the generator has to carry the accessibility context while it makes the UI. That matters because accessibility failures in generated code are rarely abstract. They show up as broken keyboard paths, silent error states, and interface logic that only works for the person who can see and click everything.

Carriço is blunt about the difference between reading and changing the workflow:

Reading about accessibility is the first step, injecting it into your code is the real goal. Do this right now in your project:

1. Download the Rules: Copy the A11Y.md file from docs/en/ to the root of your application’s repository.
2. Inject into the Prompt: If you use Cursor, GitHub Copilot, or Claude, add this to your global rules file (.cursorrules or Context system):

“Strictly follow the development rules defined in the A11Y.md file.”

3. Use as a Quality Gate: Before merging important PRs, use the checklist in docs/en/templates/REPORT.md.

If you do not perform the steps above, you are not changing your workflow — you are just reading about the subject.

That is the product here: wiring accessibility into the build process so it changes what gets generated.

Joost de Valk, creator of the Yoast SEO plugin for WordPress, has turned the “what should a good website do?” question into The Website Specification: a platform-agnostic checklist that puts HTML basics, SEO, accessibility, security, performance, privacy, internationalization, and agent readiness in one place.

The useful shift is that the AI-facing work is treated as normal website hygiene. Not a separate “AI strategy” project. Not a prompt-engineering side quest. Just another part of making the site understandable to the systems that now read, rank, quote, and retrieve it.

A platform-agnostic specification of the technical features every decent website should have — from <title> to /.well-known/security.txt, from WCAG contrast to llms.txt. Written for humans and agents.

Ten areas, mapped to widely-accepted standards.

Each topic links back to the source standard — WHATWG, W3C, IETF RFCs, WCAG, MDN, and the organisations defining the modern web.

Whether you ship WordPress, Drupal, TYPO3, Next.js, Astro, Hugo, a Django app, or plain HTML, the spec is the spec. Implementation hints follow it, not the other way round.

I like that standards-first posture. A lot of AI advice still treats the web like a pile of pages to be scraped, summarized, and maybe attributed later. De Valk pulls it back toward contracts: stable URLs, explicit policies, structured data, clean source material, and machine-readable ways to discover what matters.

From the Agent Readiness section:

Agent readiness is a loose umbrella term for the choices that make a website legible to AI agents — chat assistants, autonomous browsers, retrieval pipelines, and any other non-human client that reads the web at scale. None of it is a single formal standard. It is a collection of existing web fundamentals plus a few emerging conventions.

Agents read the same HTML as browsers, but they read it differently. They:

• Fetch a page, often without executing JavaScript.
• Strip away navigation, ads, and chrome to extract the main content.
• Follow links, structured data, and well-known endpoints to discover more.
• Cache and quote your content in answers, with or without a link back.

If your content is locked behind client-side rendering, your URLs change every release, or your robots.txt blocks the assistants your customers use, you are invisible in that surface. The pages that win in agent answers are the ones that are easy to fetch, easy to parse, and easy to trust.

That’s the part designers should pay attention to. We tend to think of the interface as the thing on the screen. But if agents are part of the audience now, the interface also includes off-screen surfaces: metadata that explains the page, feeds and sitemaps that expose what exists, crawler policies that say what can be read, and curated indexes like llms.txt that tell software what matters.

De Valk again:

There is no single switch. The items in this category each cover one part:

• Stable URLs so cached answers stay valid.
• Structured data (JSON-LD) so agents can extract entities without guessing.
• Clean semantic HTML so content extraction does not pull in navigation.
• A robots.txt that names AI crawlers explicitly so your policy is unambiguous.
• /llms.txt as a curated index of your most important content (emerging).
• Machine-readable endpoints — sitemaps, RSS, JSON feeds — where they fit.
• MCP server endpoints for sites that expose tools or actions (emerging).

Most of these also benefit traditional search engines and accessibility. Agent readiness rarely conflicts with the rest of the spec; it just raises the priority of things that have always been good practice.

De Valk’s point is simpler: agent readiness mostly means doing the old web discipline well enough that agents can actually read and trust the site.

Dan Carey leads product at Anthropic Labs, the team behind Claude Code and Claude Design. In a talk on how a three-person team shipped Claude Design in ten weeks, he describes what happened to everyone else after their engineers got fast:

And so once Claude Code took off, the bottleneck moved. The bottleneck moved from building the feature to figuring out the right things to be building for your users, in a lot of cases. So the option was either skip those early steps, just try and decide on the fly, and potentially build the wrong thing really fast, or try to find ways for the rest of us to speed up. So our designers, our PMs, were having trouble keeping up. We needed our own accelerator tool.

Carey just relocated the bottleneck onto the exact work designers and PMs own: figuring out what’s worth building. That’s product discovery becoming the real constraint. When building gets cheap, what’s left to get right is the decision about what to build at all.

How does the team make that call? Not by writing it down:

So we like to use prototypes because documents are imprecise. It’s so easy for two people to look at the same doc and have two different products in mind about what the experience should be. […] Prototypes are more concrete, more visceral. They let you get hands on with the thing and really feel the experience yourself.

They skipped the PRD and the vision docs entirely. A working prototype immediately aligns people, and it doubles as the discovery tool: you build the rough thing to find out what the right thing is.

And it helped that the team was small enough to skip coordination entirely. Here’s Carey:

Everyone on the team does everything. The engineers talk to users, PMs write code, designers do data analysis. All of these things are enabled in part with Claude. And the lines between the roles on this team, they have essentially dissolved at this point. You do have your specialization, you do have the unique perspective and diversity that you bring to a team, but at any moment, any one of these people on this team can talk to 10 users, you can realize what the underlying problem is, you can design a solution to it, you can ship it to users, you can listen for feedback, you can keep iterating solo if you need to.

On Carey’s team, the designer who spots the problem also builds the solution and ships it. That’s the kind of role a lot of designers are now being asked to grow into, and it looks less like a handoff between specialists than one person carrying an idea from problem to finished screen.

Speed doesn’t guarantee you build the right thing, though, and Carey is candid about the team’s misses. They built a set of advanced, fine-grained controls for power users. A few vocal testers loved them—I know I would have. But the usage showed everyone else hated them, and the team pulled the controls in a week. Two lessons came out of it:

So this taught us a couple of things. One, this taught us that we should be a tool that lifts the level of craft for everybody, not just the ceiling on power users. It also taught us that we want to be as open as possible, because there will be users that we never meet the full needs of. There’s going to be some power user out there who wants to do something very specific that we’re not going to support. And that’s what convinced us that we wanted this to be a very open tool. That’s why if you export from it, you get HTML, CSS, JavaScript.

Deva Corriveau, Creative Director at Brandpie, writing for The Subtext, asks what happens when the customer doesn’t choose at all.

Take something mundane, like ordering a takeaway. Consumers don’t feel a deep emotional connection to whether dinner arrives via Just Eat, Deliveroo or Uber Eats. They may have habits or interface preferences, but they don’t meaningfully care about the logo on the rider’s jacket or the tone of voice in their advertising. Yet these businesses still spend tens of millions each year trying to build precisely that sense of distinction.

Now imagine a step beyond this. Instead of opening an app at all, the consumer simply instructs an AI assistant to order a pizza. The system scans available providers, evaluates delivery times, compares pricing, reviews reliability data, and executes the transaction. The entire process takes place behind a seamless, invisible layer of automation. The user does not browse. They do not compare. They are not exposed to campaigns or nudged by distinctive brand assets. The decision is simply optimized.

From a consumer perspective, this is seamless and efficient. From a brand perspective, it’s an unsettling shift in how choice is made and where influence sits.

That distinction matters. In a browser or an app, brand can still interrupt the customer at the point of comparison. Inside an agent, the brand has to show up as criteria the agent can evaluate.

Corriveau on the shift:

For decades, we’ve treated awareness as the foundation of growth. Be famous. Be distinctive. Be top of mind. When the moment of choice arrives, ensure your brand is mentally available. That logic remains sound – but only if a human is making the decision.

An AI agent does not remember your jingle or favour your colour palette. It does not feel reassured by your heritage or inspired by your purpose. It simply calculates against a defined set of criteria.

This does not mean brand disappears, but its role shifts. Marketeers must move upstream from the moment of choice to defining the parameters of the choice itself.

If the agent is comparing delivery time, service ratings, return policies, privacy history, and price, then the promises a brand makes need to map to service behaviors, policies, and performance an agent can actually evaluate. A promise the company can’t prove becomes decoration.

I don’t read this as “branding is dead.” Corriveau is saying something narrower: people still define preferences; automation changes when and how those preferences get expressed.

Discussions about automation often miss a critical point: humans still define the criteria. A user may delegate comparison and selection to an AI, but they still decide what it optimises for. They might instruct it to prioritize companies with high customer service ratings, favour businesses with strong sustainability credentials, or exclude brands that have suffered data breaches. Human values, identity, and worldview remain central – they are simply expressed differently.

Trust, identity signalling, ethical alignment: these human drivers do not disappear just because a machine intermediates the transaction. In fact, they may become more explicit. Rather than being subconsciously influenced by advertising, consumers will consciously encode their preferences into the system.

In that world, the role of brand becomes less about capturing attention in the moment and more about establishing a presence so clear and widely understood that people choose to embed it into their decision rules. The brands that endure will be those that stand for something concrete enough to be deliberately included in the instructions given to machines.

That keeps Corriveau’s argument from becoming a pure optimization story. He isn’t replacing human values with machine logic; he is moving the expression of those values upstream. The shelf moment gets quieter because the proxy has already filtered the options. Brand becomes less about a burst of attention and more about operational consistency the customer can delegate with confidence.

For designers and brand teams, the practical consequence is simple: brand claims need proof a system can read and compare. The work doesn’t stop at making a company memorable; it has to make the company’s promises observable, consistent, and legible before a human sees the options. The artifact isn’t only the campaign anymore; it’s the evidence trail behind the campaign.

The biggest risk sits in the middle. The brands whose differentiation relies primarily on communication rather than capability. Agentic AI will expose decorative branding with uncomfortable clarity. If your distinctiveness lives in marketing but not in service, performance or trust, optimisation will reduce your value to price alone.

For branding professionals, this is not a minor adjustment; it is a structural reframing. The future will rely less on megaphones and more on architecture. We must move away from simply generating awareness toward establishing qualities so credible and so consistent that they influence how customers configure their digital proxies. The question is no longer just how to be noticed, but how to be retrievable, recommendable, and selectable inside AI-driven systems.

This is where Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) begins to matter. Brands will need to think less in terms of impressions and more in terms of machine-readable signals of trust, performance, and relevance – the inputs that shape whether an AI system even considers them in a ranked set of options. Practically, this means building brand equity in ways that can be consistently interpreted by both humans and machines: structured proof of service quality, transparent value signals, strong third-party validation, and behavioural consistency over time.

Thirty-year veteran software engineer Christoph Mütze shipped a 25,000-parameter transformer that runs on a stock Commodore 64, complete with an exhaustive test harness and a stack of reference implementations that all have to agree before anything ships. He called it SoulPlayer. In return he got called a vibecoder. Same reflex as the Monet pile-on: label first, verdict next, evidence optional. His response is the takedown of the “vibecoded slop” accusation I’d been waiting for somebody to write, and it lands on a single question that nobody on the accusing side wants to answer:

If vibecoding is what you say it is, if AI does the hard part, if the human just prompts and ships, if expertise is no longer a moat, then the world should be drowning in proper software right now. Not slop. Real tools. The kind people pay for, depend on, use every day. Two years of access. Millions of people with the models. The barrier supposedly fell. …where is everything?

David Pierce, catalogued the bespoke micro-apps people are building for themselves: family budget trackers, fantasy baseball rank engines, migration logs with a total addressable market of one. That’s real, and it’s the right scale to celebrate. But Mütze is asking a different question: where is the vibecoded Photoshop? Where is the vibecoded Maya, the vibecoded Blender, the vibecoded compiler that compiles itself? If the prompt-and-ship cartoon were true, two years in we’d have an avalanche of sophisticated tools built by people who don’t know how to code. We don’t. The category is empty. Mütze’s diagnosis of why is the part I want every designer reading this to take in:

Level 1 is what the industry usually calls coding. The syntax, the loops, the years memorizing pointer arithmetic and which header file the function lives in. LeetCode-measurable. The job interview essence. The mechanical part. The typing.

Level 2 is flow. What you do with Level 1. Knowing the right data structure. Knowing which ugly pragmatic solution to ship instead of the beautiful academic one. Reading other people’s code. Taste and judgment. The reflex of rejecting solutions that almost work and shipping the ones that do. Debugging, unit testing, the quality-control part.

Level 3 is architecture. The macro decisions, made with full awareness of their consequences. What to build at all. Why this data structure and not that one. Why this trade-off and not the obvious one. Which design survives contact with the real world, and which one silently falls apart two years later. The deciding part.

The three have never been the same thing. The gate was never at Level 1. The gate was at Levels 2 and 3, where the work that holds together actually happens. AI lowered the cost of Level 1. It didn’t really touch Levels 2 or 3. The gate is exactly where it always was.

You can easily translate this framework from engineering to design. Level 1 in design is pushing pixels: the auto-layout setup, the icon nudging, the variant-matrix work in Figma that fills our days. Level 2 is the taste that picks which of the fifteen generated directions is actually worth shipping. Level 3 is deciding what to build at all, and for whom. AI is eating Level 1 in design the same way it has eaten Level 1 in code. The designers who panic about “vibecoded design” are panicking because Level 1 was the layer they could see, measure, and defend. The gate is somewhere else, and it always was.

The reason this gets so emotional is the part Christopher Butler has been pointing at for a while: AI doesn’t just replace tools, it renegotiates what made you worth hiring. Mütze says the same thing:

The accusers cannot see this. They are not at the gate. They were at Level 1. Level 1 was their identity, their hours, their proof of belonging, their reason to feel at home in this profession. When AI made Level 1 cheap, it did not threaten the gate. It threatened them. Because they bet their self-worth on the layer that just got rented out. So they call the work vibecoded. They have to.

Mütze could weaponize the accusation back. He has the receipts: the test harness, the reference implementations, thirty years on the demoscene. He refuses and ends with a call-to-action:

If you’ve been sitting on something you made with AI, ship it. Name your tools. Don’t apologize. The accusation is cheaper than the work. Yours is worth more.

David Pierce, writing for The Verge, dates the inflection precisely: late 2025, when an update to Claude Code crossed the line from “surprising when it worked” to “surprising when it didn’t.” That’s the moment vibe coding stopped being a demo and started being a tool ordinary people could actually use.

In late 2025, an update to Anthropic’s Claude model turned its Claude Code tool from a code generator that was surprising if it worked to one that was surprising when it didn’t. Suddenly, all you needed was $20 a month and a half-formed idea, and an AI model could build you functional software. If you could explain what wasn’t working, Claude Code could probably fix it. Andrej Karpathy, an educator and researcher who was on OpenAI’s founding team, had called this new behavior “vibe coding.” Suddenly the vibes were off the charts.

The reliability threshold matters more than the headline number. Twenty dollars a month was already true. What changed is that the output stopped breaking when you asked it to do something real. That’s what made the personal software lineage—from HyperCard in 1987 through Lee Robinson’s essay, the home-cooked-app idea, micro-apps, and fleeting apps—turn from a niche aesthetic into something a normal person could actually do over a weekend.

Pierce documents his own version of that weekend: building Timetable, abandoning it, building Spring and forgetting what it did, getting stuck on Twilio bills. The realization that pulls him out of the loop is the one that’s worth dwelling on:

What saved my efforts was the realization that personal software doesn’t have to be built from scratch. Knowledgeable developers might be newly capable home cooks, but the rest of us are more like customers at Chipotle. We don’t make the food, we don’t even really assemble it, but we get to decide what goes where and how it’s served to us. For most of us, the future of software is not building our own Excel from scratch, it’s using the models to build spreadsheets wildly more capable than we could create ourselves. It’s building the Chrome extension for your favorite app that is really only missing a Chrome extension. It’s tweaking the way things look to suit your exact taste and needs.

Most coverage of vibe coding implies the future is everyone becoming a one-person engineering team. Pierce’s actual claim is narrower and more useful: like ordering a Chipotle burrito, you’re picking ingredients and toppings, not running the kitchen. The point is not to replace Notion or Obsidian or Todoist. It’s to bend them an inch closer to how you actually work.

My whole publishing workflow for this blog switched from Payload CMS to a custom admin UI and now a custom Obsidian plugin.

Which brings the conversation to where Pierce lands it: taste.

In this new world, the most important thing you’ll need is taste. Not objectively good taste, necessarily, so much as a keen sense of your own. You need to be like Rick Rubin, the famous music producer, who once told 60 Minutes that what made him successful was not any particular technical ability, but “the confidence I have in my taste, and my ability to express what I feel.” Rubin practices that art with A-list celebrities; you need to be able to do it with AI. Otherwise, you’ll land in what Lovin calls “doom loops,” telling your chatbot only what you don’t like and counting on the model to be the creative one. That way lies madness — and bad software.

Yan Liu’s working definition of taste cites the same Rubin formula—sensitivity times standards—and that’s the part of Pierce’s argument that designers should sit with. The $20 vibe-coder has the tool. What they often don’t have is the trained eye to know when Claude’s purple gradient is wrong, or why the icon looks like a butthole instead of a planner. Pierce learned this the hard way and concluded, sensibly, that he didn’t have opinions about databases but did have opinions about typefaces. That’s the right diagnosis. It also undersells what designers actually do—Raj Nandan Sharma’s warning about taste-as-end-of-pipeline selection is the other half of this. If designers don’t show up as authors here—shaping what gets generated, not just thumbs-upping it after the fact—the personal software era will produce a lot of bespoke purple gradients and not much else.

An X user posted a painting from Claude Monet’s Water Lilies series, labeled it as AI-generated, and asked the timeline to explain what made it inferior to the real thing. Michael Zhang, writing for PetaPixel, collected what came back. Critics produced confident, formally-worded takedowns of an actual masterpiece:

“I’m disappointed I have to even point it out. There is no cohesion to the depth and color choices. The reflection of the tree bleeds into the lilypads with no regard for spatial depth or contrast. The background lilypad-algae amalgam is egregiously vague, like most AI art.”

The reflections are noise. The composition has no focal point. The lily pads look drawn on. Reply after reply, in vocabulary borrowed from art-school crit, explaining why a Monet is not a Monet.

The article ties the prank to research published in Nature in 2024 by Simone Grassini and Mika Koivisto:

“Participants were unable to consistently distinguish between human and AI-created images. Furthermore, despite generally preferring the AI-generated artworks over human-made ones, the participants displayed a negative bias against AI-generated artworks when subjective perception of source attribution was considered, thus rating as less preferable the artworks perceived more as AI-generated, independently on their true source.”

The finding lands the experiment: source attribution does the work, not vision. Tell people the image is AI and the same image becomes worse. The technical vocabulary arrives to justify a judgment that was already made.

Viewers don’t even need the prompt. They’ll supply the label themselves: parts of Lady Gaga’s Tim Burton-directed Dead Dance video struck people as AI because the imagery looked odd, and the slop critiques followed.

This is what Christopher Butler called the reactionary red-lining of AI—drawing hard lines against a category of work and then reverse-engineering the reasons. The Monet experiment is the same bias caught in the act, just running aesthetically instead of ethically.

Gess Puglielli, writing on LinkedIn, argues that the speed of AI interface generation has revealed something other than a new tool. It has revealed that a lot of companies were never working from a real definition of design:

But interfaces were never the real value of design. They were just the artefacts left behind. The output. The visible layer of a much deeper process involving human behaviour, systems thinking, psychology, usability, strategy, communication, emotion, culture and invention. Design was never about moving pixels around a canvas. Design is how humans shape the world around them.

Jakob Nielsen made an adjacent argument about the shift from artifact production to intent shaping. Puglielli is pointing at something sharper. Nielsen describes a shift in what designers do; Puglielli says the shift has exposed a category of companies that mistook the artifact for the work in the first place.

The diagnostic part is what stayed with me:

In many organisations, designers were already being treated like production software long before generative AI arrived. The process often looked something like this: Product defines requirements. Engineering defines constraints. Leadership defines strategy. Then design is invited in to “make it look good.” At that point, the designer has already been removed from the act of designing. They’ve become decorators of predetermined decisions.

This is what makes “AI replaced our designers” make sense inside certain rooms and sound absurd inside others. If your design function had already been narrowed to ticket-taking execution, AI can replicate execution. Karri Saarinen pointed at the same misunderstanding when he wrote that the hard part of design is understanding the problem well enough to know what should exist at all. Puglielli’s contribution is the corollary: the companies that don’t know that won’t notice it’s missing when it gets cut.

Puglielli argues what AI isn’t good at:

AI can generate screens. It cannot independently define meaningful problems worth solving. It cannot deeply understand cultural nuance, emotional context or human contradiction in the way experienced designers can. It cannot navigate organisational politics, align competing stakeholder priorities, recognise ethical implications or identify latent human needs before users themselves can articulate them.

Most importantly, it cannot care. And care matters more than the industry likes to admit.

Care is the right word for designers and a weak word for industry, because businesses don’t pay for care. They pay for the outputs care produces—taste, the ability to see a problem before it’s named, and the thing we call judgment.

The headline says it all: “Uber president says AI spending is getting ‘harder to justify.’”

Jess Weatherbed, writing in The Verge:

After reportedly exhausting its annual AI budget just four months into 2026, Uber is now questioning whether it’s actually seeing meaningful returns on its investments. In an interview with Rapid Response, Uber president and chief operating officer Andrew Macdonald said the company isn’t seeing a connection between rising token consumption for Claude Code and more useful features being delivered to consumers.

“That link is not there yet, right? I think maybe implicitly there is more that is getting shipped, but it’s very hard to draw a line between one of those stats and, ‘Okay, now we’re actually producing 25 percent more useful consumer features,’” said Macdonald. “I think over the coming quarters and years, maybe that will become clearer, but I think today it’s hard, even if some of the underlying metrics are trending in a really astronomical direction.”

Two quick thoughts. First, engineering—and by extension, product and design—velocity gains like 2x, 3x, or 10x show up in the output. They aren’t showing up directly in the outcomes. Getting to a design faster doesn’t mean you designed the right thing.

Second, we haven’t redesigned the factory floor yet. It’s a metaphor I’m borrowing from Tommy Geoco. When factories converted from steam power to electricity in the 1880s, they swapped out the engines and did nothing else. The floor plan and workflow didn’t change. For three decades, output barely moved. Only when companies redesigned their factories and process around the new technology did they see an increase in output.

We haven’t quite figured this out as an industry or discipline yet. As I’ve written previously, it’s foggy but the shape is unmistakable. The answer is out there.

Addy Osmani makes a clean separation that most of the “is AI making us dumber” discourse keeps glossing over. He reports on Anthropic’s randomized trial of engineers learning a new Python library:

Engineers who used AI to ask conceptual questions scored above 65%. Engineers who copy-pasted the generated code scored under 40%. The tool didn’t determine the outcome. The posture did.

Osmani is writing for engineers, but most of that translates to designers picking up Figma Make, Lovable, or v0. Ship-without-comprehension scales beautifully right up until the moment you have to debug, redesign, or defend a choice you didn’t really make.

He ends on a ritual any designer can adopt verbatim:

I’ve started ending coding sessions with a simple question: did I learn anything today, or did I just close tickets? Sometimes the honest answer is “I just closed issues” and that’s fine. If it becomes the answer for months in a row, cognitive debt is accumulating in the background. Ship and learn are two separate metrics.

Workslop is the companion failure mode: the cost goes to your coworkers, where skipped learning costs your future self.

The artifact-to-intent argument has been working its way through design writing for a while now. What Jakob Nielsen adds to it, writing in UX Tigers, is a name for the failure mode that comes with the territory:

We used to accumulate design debt when teams shipped inconsistent components or patched over poor flows. Now we will accumulate intent debt: undocumented assumptions, vague brand guidance, missing escalation rules, untested agent permissions, and research insights that never become usable by the systems doing the work. Intent debt will be harder to see than visual inconsistency, but it will be more damaging because it compounds invisibly through every generated output.

Nielsen’s prior writing on intent-based UX argued that evaluation has become the new bottleneck for the user. A chat completes the task in seconds, and you spend the next half hour checking whether it actually did what you meant. Intent debt extends that bottleneck to the organization. The team ships ten variants in an afternoon, and nobody can tell which ones violated a brand rule that was never written down, or bypassed an escalation path that only lived in a senior designer’s head.

Nielsen puts the failure plainly:

The new danger is that AI will produce many adequate screens that all seem defensible in isolation and incoherent in aggregate. Mediocrity will arrive well-dressed. The designer’s role is to prevent the organization from drowning in plausible options.

Which is why the design system has to grow up:

The design system thus stops being a component library and becomes an operating system for taste. Tokens, components, and usage rules are only the visible layer. Underneath must be a deeper set of instructions about brand behavior, interaction philosophy, accessibility standards, motion logic, content tone, escalation patterns, and product judgment. The system must know not only which button to use, but when not to add a button at all.

Developer Mark Anthony Cianfrani has argued that LLMs finally let us ship the reasoning behind a token alongside the token. Nielsen draws the consequence of skipping that work: a weak design system in the AI era becomes an active liability. Agents will faithfully build with whatever’s encoded, and faithfully invent the rest.