64 posts tagged with “creativity”

Celine Nguyen, writing for Asterisk Magazine, questions the promise that taste will protect us from AI. She asks how we acquire taste and why we’d make economic survival its purpose. This is how she describes the tech industry’s view:

Taste, then, is that ineffable thing that makes you, and your business, irreplaceable. It separates the winners from the permanent underclass. It seems to be objectively measurable, or at the very least hierarchical, much like employee compensation or financial capital. To have good taste is to have more of it than other people. But to understand what taste is and how it’s cultivated, we may need to return to an earlier moment in history — when automation led to similar anxieties about human distinctiveness and economic competitiveness.

The promise depends on taste being beyond AI’s reach. Nguyen questions that premise: as literary scholar Leif Weatherby tells her, models already draw on human judgments of taste.

Her history of design education offers another approach. Britain responded to industrial competition by funding schools and museums. She describes how Bauhaus artist and educator Josef Albers taught at Black Mountain College:

The key insight of the Bauhaus’s foundation year was to treat aesthetic perception as a domain-independent skill — shaped by material literacy and craft knowledge, but not in thrall to a particular medium. But the foundation year that Albers brought to America wasn’t just about transmitting a single, preferred form of perception from teacher to student. Instead, students developed a shared “understanding of different ways of seeing and representing” through critiques “coming from the [other] students and then from the teacher.” (These critiques, Albers noted dryly, also “diminish[ed] the tendency to overestimate one’s own work.”) His approach encouraged students to sharpen their “intuitive perception,” and simultaneously practice conveying these perceptions to others.

Nguyen also describes how her interest in Belgian fashion informed her work designing software. She resists reducing those influences to status-seeking or imitation. By the end, she’s asking technologists to reconsider what cultivating taste is for:

Anxious technologists ought to free themselves from tyranny, but that doesn’t mean they need to give up on taste. They may need, however, to reconsider how they pursue it. Our tastes may be personal and idiosyncratic — but they are refined, by and large, when we relate to each other. Explaining our tastes is how we train our perceptual abilities, and our ability to participate in a pluralistic world. It’s a world in which our differences are energizing, not deflating: “The goal,” as the critic Carl Wilson wrote, “is not that we all end up with the same taste.” In an essay on musical taste — republished, years later, as a book with the seductively judgmental subtitle Why Other People Have Such Bad Taste — Wilson suggests that we learn to “relish the plenitude of tastes,” including when someone else’s tastes are “alien to our own.”

It’s true that our tastes can help with minor decisions: the music you listen to in the evenings, the shoes you buy when your Salomons wear out, and when to use an em dash (or, for the advanced aesthetes, an en). And they inform our larger decisions, too: what research problems to pursue, which films get screened, what startups get funded, what features you ship. But the lifelong project of training our tastes might serve a higher purpose than building a personal brand or profitable business. Our tastes are how we understand ourselves — and communicating them is how we understand each other.

Software developer raf, who learned the craft by building and breaking web applications, describes a new apprenticeship problem that starts with an apparent success: a beginner can generate competent work on day one.

I’ll tell you this much: it’s not from consuming good work. You cannot read a hundred excellent programs and absorb the judgement by osmosis, any more than you can become a chef by eating in good restaurants. Taste is built the slow, stupid, humiliating way: you make something bad, you are forced to live with it, it fails in front of you, and some part of you files the failure away. Then you do it again. The palate is an accretion of your own mistakes, sat with long enough to sting.

The friction was not an obstacle to developing taste. The friction was the curriculum. Every wall I cursed while climbing it was, without my noticing, teaching me which walls were worth climbing. The cost that rationed my output also educated my judgement, because paying the cost over and over is how you learn what is worth paying for.

For designers, the old bottleneck did two jobs at once. Producing a weak concept, defending it in critique, watching it fail with users, and revising it made bad choices costly enough to remember. AI can compress that cycle into a polished mockup before a beginner has learned what to reject.

raf on the cost of taste:

This is the quiet cruelty of the situation and I do not have a comforting way to phrase it. Taste is slow. It says “no, again.” It sends the plausible thing back because plausible is not the same as right, and while it is doing that, the person without it has already shipped, closed the ticket, and moved on. The market timed you both with the same stopwatch and it did not see the difference. It cannot see the difference. Taste does not show up in the diff.

That makes critique more important, not less. Design teams need to value frank feedback from the skeptics in the room, not only the ones who ship fast.

Ageism in design is real. In my last job search a couple of years ago, I got zero callbacks. I landed a new role via connections.

What’s kept me sane and relevant has been curiosity. Tom May, writing in Creative Bloom:

One thing does need to stay sharp, though. As creative director Olivia Downing explains: “The secret sauce is you have to stay curious. About culture, about platforms, about all of it. You don’t have to be on social media, but I believe it’s our job to understand the importance and relevance of the medium.”

Creativity researcher Keith Sawyer described art and design school as a place where students learn to see their own work: they bring unfinished work into critique, hear what others see in it, and practice identifying the gap between intention and result.

David Hoang turns that studio lesson into exercises early-career designers can continue long after school:

To train the eye, spend time doing three things: Capture, Collect, and Curate. To Capture, bring the tools that work best for you: a physical notebook, camera, recorder, or phone. As you walk around, travel, read a book, or surf the internet, Collect what matters. The point isn’t volume but discernment. I keep folders on my Mac for interesting textures, color palettes, fonts applied in the wild, and shapes found in nature. Finally, Curate what you captured. Don’t bury it in a Photo Library with tens of thousands of images. Put your observations somewhere you can revisit daily. Print them out or make a mood board. Whatever you choose, give your trained eye the proper attention.

Hoang then moves from observation to making. He recommends rebuilding strong interfaces from scratch, with the original on the canvas beside your work:

For interface designers, my recommendation is to copy from the masters. By copy, I don’t mean taking a screenshot and putting it in Codex or cloning from a UI library. Look at the work and reproduce it in your UI drawing tool. Put the screenshot on the canvas and reconstruct it from scratch. As you do this, note the margins, spacing, and font sizes. Ask why they work. What deliberate decisions produced this output?

And designers have to explain those decisions. Hoang treats critiques, presentations, and written rationales as more practice because each forces intuition into words. All of it feeds the same loop:

Experience isn’t time spent; it’s evidence of what you can do. The proof of work comes first. Design intuition can feel mysterious because the reasoning behind it becomes difficult to see. An experienced designer may recognize that something is wrong before anyone can explain why.

Edward de Bono argued that creativity isn’t an innate talent but a deliberate skill anyone can develop. I believe this, but it requires rigorous training.

This is why the repetitions matter. Every time you notice a pattern, reconstruct an interface, study an aesthetic movement, or defend a design decision, you give your intuition more evidence to draw from. Over time, the distance between seeing, understanding, and making gets shorter. Your eye begins to match your hand, and your hand begins to keep pace with your judgment.

I’ve started using AI this way in a lot of my daily work. In my day job, after diving into a problem, I give Claude the right context and iterate with it to get to a problem brief. In my freelance work, I set the parameters—the concept, style, or general functionality—then iterate with the AI.

AI product manager and builder Karo Zieminski, writing in Product with Attitude, calls this “AI-assisted craft”:

AI-assisted craft means the human sets the intention and the standard for the work, then directs how it gets made. AI gets a defined supporting role. Supporting, as in: it does not get to make the decisions. The practice applies across knowledge work and digital creation, from writing and research to coding and design.

Zieminski separates assistance from direction:

AI-assisted. The human is the primary maker. The choices, mistakes, revisions, and final form are theirs. AI is one of the tools they use.

AI-directed. The model produces the work; the human directs it. That direction must be consequential enough to shape the result. One prompt followed by a shrug is generation with supervision theatre.

Both require the human to make consequential choices. In my workflows, that happens throughout the iteration, not only when I write the first prompt.

Zieminski’s bounded-task rule makes that concrete:

“Improve this” is not a bounded task.

Give the model a job with sharp edges: do this, not that.

Research for me, BUT bring me facts, not conclusions. Challenge my assumptions, BUT do that through Socratic questions so I have to do the thinking. Explain this code block, BUT test whether I understood it. Suggest design fixes BUT don’t bleach my personality out of it. Whatever it is, leave space for my judgment.

I agree, with one small addition: setting the boundary starts the work. AI can’t answer the question at the other end for me: Would another change improve it, or is it time to stop asking?

Yennie Jun, writing for Art Fish Intelligence, asks which parts of thinking we surrender along with the task. Her example shows the difference between asking AI to answer a question and asking it to test thinking we’ve already begun:

I suggested (with only a little bit of initial resistance) that we pause and think about why this might be. I suggested a few theories. Perhaps it was Portugal’s relative homogeneity and religiousness, compared to the US’s diversity of immigrants. Perhaps Portugal clung on to so-called “Age of Exploration” as one of the most prominent chapters in its national story. We wondered, postulated, made wild guesses, backtracked, connected our ideas, disagreed, and remembered historical details we learned in high school many years ago. We drew on our collective memories, knowledge, understanding of the world, and critical thinking skills. We knew we were speculating, and some of our theories were probably wrong; that was part of the exercise.

Eventually, we asked the same question to AI. Its response corroborated many of our theories and supplied several explanations we had missed. It also omitted a few possibilities we still found plausible. We had begun with a question, generated hypotheses, and only then used AI to test and extend our thinking. I relished the exercise.

The backtracking is the point. A finished answer can save time, but repeatedly skipping the work of forming and testing a hypothesis also skips the practice that builds judgment. For designers, that’s the work we should keep, even as it accelerates production.

We still need to use trial and error to learn what to ask or try next. Otherwise, faster production leaves us less able to tell whether what we made is any good.

Jun turns from productivity to autonomy:

Am I any different from the Microphone Man? Perhaps what differentiates me is that I still collected and curated the data, formulated the questions I wanted answered, and evaluated the end results? Or that the data was my own, instead of recording other people’s conversations? There will always have to be some balance between automating menial tasks to free up time for rewarding endeavors, and doing the work yourself as a learning experience.

Jenny, another character in Ken Liu’s story, aims to counterpoint the main character’s over-reliance on his AI assistant. She exclaims, “Tilly doesn’t just tell you what you want! She tells you what to think. Do you even know what you really want anymore?” Our autonomy depends, at least in part, on continuing to participate in forming our own desires. But when we offload thinking about what we want (What music should I listen to? What movies should I watch? What food should I eat? What shoes should I wear?), who do we become?

What are we automating? Human work or human agency? Human tasks or human thinking?

Designers still have to decide what deserves to exist before asking AI to make it.

Artist Katya Ross, in a talk published by CreativeMornings, the global creative community and lecture series, argues that content abundance has made intentional curation the problem:

We don’t have a content problem. We have a curation problem as a culture, as people in this overloaded culture. We don’t want more content. We want more meaningful content. […] The problem with trying to seek out meaningful content: your brain wants you to stay alive. Your brain curates according to survival, not necessarily meaning. And social media algorithms, which is a lot of where we get all of the content that we view, curate according to ad revenue. They curate according to what you pay attention to, whether you like something or not, whether you agree with it or not. It just wants your ad revenue, and it wants you scrolling.

Ross means something more specific by curation than choosing the best items from a pile. For her, it is the act of constructing relationships that create meaning:

To define curation for the sake of this talk, I would say that curation is constructing and carefully considering the relationships that make meaning possible. Curation is, in other words, the fundamental mechanism through which we can create and communicate meaning. Now, it’s just a mechanism. There’s no guarantee that your curation is going to be any good.

That shifts originality away from producing something with no precedent. The contribution is the relationship a creator sees among inherited ideas, materials, and experiences:

We are in relationship with reality. We are not truly inventing anything. We are working with what’s already there, whether that’s materials or ideas. Every idea has a lineage. Even if it is an original idea, everything that’s gone into your mind has laid the groundwork for this idea. The ideas are related to one another. Every work that you create exists in this messy, beautiful, complicated web of work that has come before, work that sits beside, work that will come after.

That is a more useful standard for originality than novelty. The materials can be familiar and the work can still be original when the relationship it reveals carries the creator’s particular way of seeing.

Modernism’s typographic principles have survived so long that clarity and legibility can feel less like choices than natural law. New New Typography asks what changes when designers treat those principles as products of their time rather than permanent rules.

Paul Moore, writing for It’s Nice That:

Are we stuck with the established typographic principles of the 20th century? This is what German design studio Matter Of is asking in its design book New New Typography (published by Sorry Press). The title is in direct reference to the proclamation of Jan Tschichold’s original “new typography” in Central Europe 100 years ago. Now Matter Of (and designer Wiegand von Hartmann) are at the spearhead of an even newer typographic revolution: the ‘new new,’ searching to unsettle established paradigms, expand vocabularies and innovate type design. That is, until it’s time for the ‘new new new’, but let’s not worry about that right now.

The book makes that challenge through form, not just argument. It switches among six sans-serif typefaces and marks its black-and-white pages with aggressive cyan, turning the act of reading into a test of what counts as coherent:

New New Typography makes itself known immediately with its minimalist aesthetic, using black-and-white print with a searing cerulean cutting through the page in disruptive squiggles or sometimes blocks of highlighted text (a conscious effort to make the book look like a textbook blasted with felt-tip markers). The book is designed using six different sans-serif typefaces that alternate across chapters, raising questions in ironic and subtle ways, such as ‘when is a typeface considered new or different?’, playfully reflecting on the evolution of Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica Now. To find ways to bring proliferating typographies into relation, the book sketches engagement between the typeface’s different dependencies, all with a tongue planted firmly in cheek.

That makes the book less a replacement doctrine than a device for questioning doctrine:

Described as a messy and unstable anti-manual for typography, 243 figures and six theoretical proposals present an overview of the impossibility of an overview on typography – it’s adventurously speculative, blending high design theory with a modern irony and cheekiness. What if the modern typographer isn’t just a typographer, but an active negotiator of political systems? Nevertheless, it isn’t a book about delivering an answer. Nowadays, just daring to imagine the future is enough.

But refusing a single answer does not mean refusing standards altogether. If typography helps negotiate political systems, its experiments still need to account for who can read them and what power they reinforce. Imagination opens the field; judgment decides what deserves to remain.

Vaughn Tan, an organizational researcher and author of The Uncertainty Mindset, argues that organizations routinely mistake uncertainty for risk. Targets, forecasts, and cost-benefit analysis assume the choices and their odds are already knowable. New ideas rarely arrive with that evidence attached.

It probably didn’t die because it was bad. Your organisation wanted something new, so it did what its machinery does: it made the new thing a big bet. Under uncertainty, big is the wrong move in two ways. A big bet on the new is not bold; it is necessarily blind, because you cannot know enough up front to justify it. And a big, visible bet is just what the parts of an organisation that want to keep things the same will move to get rid of. The better the idea, the bigger the bet you are tempted to make, and the bigger the target you paint on it.

The trouble with a flagship is that its visibility becomes part of its risk. Tan’s alternative is to make experimentation less dramatic and more routine:

The moves to make are the undramatic ones. Start small enough that no one sees a threat. Make tests cheap, fast, and numerous, so failure is survivable: a portfolio of small bets each placed to answer useful questions, instead of one big bet placed to create the impression of decisiveness. Disguise the innovation as an unremarkable update to standard procedure. The idea is to not fight the system head-on.

This is a useful distinction for design leaders. A large commitment tries to prove confidence before the team has learned enough to deserve it. A portfolio of reversible tests turns the same resources into evidence.

If this sounds like working behind the organisation’s back, consider what the alternative gambles with. The innovation big bet stakes public money and public trust on a guess, faking certainty about something genuinely uncertain. The small, quiet experiment spends almost nothing to buy real knowledge, and the public is never exposed to a large, irreversible downside. Being responsibly sneaky isn’t cheating. It’s how you take care of public resources in a world you cannot predict.

The responsible move under uncertainty is to keep failure cheap and learning continuous. In other words, get prototypes in front of customers as soon as you can.

Tom May profiles creative director Gemma Phillips, whose work follows one test: does it meet people in the reality they already inhabit?

Brands have an instinct to sugarcoat. Maybe they think we can’t handle the truth. But we’re already living the truth; that’s the irony. The grit is where it’s at.

Bluntness delivers the message. Recognition gives it force.

I look at the work they’re already doing. Who’s taking risks? Who’s trying to do something differently? Who’s willing to say the thing that no one else is saying? Who wants to change things, rather than do more of the same but with nicer design?

Humour can be incredibly respectful because it acknowledges reality. It’s a sign that you genuinely understand the audience; you’re one of them, not a machine hovering above them, selling them something they know isn’t true.

Phillips’s work is provocative because it acknowledges the truth and doesn’t gloss over the uncomfortable.

Nolen Royalty, a software maker who writes at eieio.games, gets at a problem with AI-generated work that shows up before judgment: the effort signal. His examples include tldraw, the collaborative drawing tool, closing AI-generated pull requests, warm-cream Claude websites, and record collecting, but the point is simple. Polish used to be a proxy for care. Now it isn’t.

What software (and writing, to an extent) is missing now is legibility of effort - the ability to tell at a glance whether something took a human meaningful work.

Until recently, “someone cared enough to write this” was an ok heuristic. Plenty of writing on the internet was bad, but you could convince me that you cared about something just by writing it down.

Of course, generating plausible-looking text - or a plausible-looking website - is trivial now.

For designers, that broken proxy is already visible on the surface. We can all spot the default Claude style now, which is funny until you realize that a visual pattern has become an accusation about how much thought went into the site.

There’s nothing objectively wrong with making a website with a warm-cream background and hero text in a sans-serif font with a single accent word that uses an eye-catching color and a different font.

But when I see a website that has the default Claude style I assume that the author put ~no thought into how the site should look. And I often assume that the author didn’t put too much thought into the rest of the site either.

That’s not fair of me! But “someone made this website” is no longer enough to tell me that the website was important to them. So “default Claude style” is one of my new heuristics.

Taste sounds less mystical when you put it this way. A designer doesn’t make a screen human by avoiding beige or picking a stranger typeface. The work is in the decisions: why this hierarchy, why this contrast, why this interaction, why this amount of friction.

The proliferation of digital music and streaming made having a music collection easy and frictionless. And so a subculture evolved to re-add that friction.

And in small ways I think you see the same things happening now.

I’ve seen people joke about adding typos to emails to prove that they wrote them. MS Paint-style image macros read as more human than detailed, funny images (the image could be AI slop). Websites that look intentionally bad are more interesting than websites that look beautifully bland.

The easy story about AI in creative work is that it closes distance: idea, prompt, output, iteration, all compressed. It’s Nice That gets at the more designerly version of that question by putting creative technology’s appetite for “happy accidents” next to design’s need for control:

“From the technology approach, the metaphor I equate it to is the classic ‘happy accidents’ you have when you are in a design tool,” Seth says, finding expected moments of creativity. “The best happy accidents aren’t just between a person and a tool; they happen between people.” It’s perhaps in this notion that co-creation is at its most visible, not in the technology itself, but rather in the conversations and unexpected developments that occur when people with different perspectives work closely together. For Talia, however, this isn’t the case. “Nothing we do is experimental by nature,” Talia says, “everything is incredibly controlled – or, better yet, ‘designed’,” stressing the importance of the role of the designer and the meaning behind design itself. “Design is about creating solutions; there is a sense of control, there is a purpose, there is a function,” she continues, “even the beauty is controlled to a degree.” An example is the generative motion graphics system that Talia created, in collaboration with Mother, for the Crypto coin USDC.

Designer and coder Talia Cotton’s line clarifies the whole piece: “controlled – or, better yet, ‘designed’.” Cotton’s point is that the speed of generation only makes the designer’s eye more important, because someone still has to decide the boundaries before the machine starts producing variations.

Cotton’s USDC system makes that concrete:

Within the visual identity, Talia developed a custom tool that generated guilloché patterns, in reference to the historical patterns used in traditional finance. Alongside set, systematic parameters – including height, width, density, and speed – Talia had to create algorithmically constrained rules within those limitations. “As you adjusted one parameter, another parameter would automatically change its available range,” Talia says, “that ensured every possible output looked good.” As Talia suggests, especially considering the ease with which people can generate things, the “designer’s eye” is now more important than ever. “The designer’s job is to create an airtight generative system that considers every possible case and every possible output,” she says, “so that every single output always looks great, no matter how different it is.”

Michael Riddering’s Dive Club interview with Loredana Crisan, Figma’s chief design officer, is about how Figma wants a bigger, faster, more explicit design loop.

Riddering asks Crisan whether taste gets less defensible when everyone can make more things faster:

I actually think that what happens when everyone has the power to build is actually it elevates the need to stand out. You could buy those pretty funny or soulful congratulatory cards, birthday cards, whatever cards, and they have the message written inside. And it’s a great message. Do you just give somebody that card? You could, but that’s not what you do if you’re a good friend. That’s not how you show up. And so I think that the more software is getting created, the more articles are being written. Basically, we’re in a place where everything is getting produced at such high, high rate. And we already had trouble consuming what was already there. And so what we’re going to try to do is look for even more authenticity. […] So this is why I think it’s not taste. It’s just your point of view, your human intuition, what you want for that experience needs to come through. And then the tools that they build are very much important to help you drive that.

I think Crisan is right about the greeting card metaphor. When production gets cheap, the work that still feels made for someone will matter more, not less.

That matters for designers because AI abundance changes the filter. The scarce thing is knowing why this draft, this interaction, this bit of motion belongs in this product.

Riddering then pushes on control, which is where Crisan gets concrete about Figma’s tool bet:

The premise is that AI could get you to 70%. And this is true with motion. You could prompt your frame and then you will get the first animation set up. But then from there, you need to make it yours. So it’s almost like AI sets up the workspace. It gives you the parameters, but then you are the one that makes that thing. […] If there is a color that I want to put in my design, a color wheel will never be replaced by a prompt. So there are moments where you just want to take control yourself. […] And it’s an interesting way of working because increasingly as designers, I believe we’re creating systems, not just screens. […] Design is never done alone. Design is evolved through critique. It’s a place where one of the tools of design is other people. And so it’s really fun to be able to have AI, have agents, have the direct manipulation and direct control and your team in one space.

This is the version of AI design tooling that makes sense to me: the tool accelerates the setup, the first draft, but the product still gives designers enough control to make taste visible in the final result.

When working with AI design tools, we tend to think we need to one-shot a prompt to get everything. That, of course, is far from true. We iterate—a lot—by describing the changes we want, then waiting, and inevitably, iterating again. Crisan is describing a tool that still leaves room for the hand: sliders, variables, shared artifacts, and other people.

And she points to evals as part of the designer’s new job:

Increasingly, we’re working with non-deterministic systems, right? So a lot of what the experience is, is produced by an LLM. Previously, it could be produced by an algorithm. I worked at Meta and can tell you, we’ve had a lot of conversations about the buttons that would exist on a feed story. Those buttons are important, but when you think about what people really experience when they open one of those products, it’s the content. And so all of the conversations that we had about buttons as designers were far, far less important than the conversations that we should have had about the algorithm itself, right? And when it comes to these non-deterministic systems, how do you ensure that they meet your quality bar? There’s this thing called the evals is, on the one hand, the least sexy thing in the world, because you are now in a place where you’re trying to specify what good looks like and how systems that could either recognize that themselves or be augmented with humans that could do that. And it’s fascinating to try to do this on an unverifiable domain like design, because design is not, there’s not a correct answer to design, but there are many incorrect answers.

In designer and investor Soleio’s South Park Commons interview, Rasmus Andersson, creator of Inter and an early Figma designer, draws a useful distinction between software and type. Regular software decays fast; Andersson says that if he hasn’t touched something in two weeks, he usually trashes it and starts over. But a typeface can keep gaining value years later.

Andersson starts with how complex modern software is:

Today there’s just this towering complexity of making software, and for a very good reason, right? For like 15, maybe 20 years by now, our industry as a whole has been hyper-focused on scale because it’s just been an economic evolution that’s been out of this world. So it makes sense that we’ve been trading off and trading away things like shareware, concepts like that, and things like simplicity and ease for the ability to scale and for the ability to things at scale to actually work and break apart. But in the wake of all of that, which is great in so many ways, we’ve given up these things that are listed, and I feel like at least me and many people like me and who sort of are trained to build this thing, enjoy making software at a smaller scale.

That’s like a metaphor that I think can be helpful is imagine your room, apartment, house, whatever, your dwelling place. It’s probably different from the person next to you. And it’s not so that we go out and we buy the Apple apartment and all the furniture is there and everything is perfect and we can change the carpet, and that’s about it. That’s ridiculous, no one would do that. Yet that’s what people do with software.

Manufacturing software was professionalized and gentrified. The stack got so optimized for global products that it left less room for the small, personal, weird things people used to make for themselves.

Andersson’s Figma story keeps that from becoming nostalgia:

First off, something that was just amazing about working at Figma at the time was that there was just this culture of doing things differently. That was amazing. And every single individual who I worked with were just like, if that person went to start a company now and they put me with it, I’ll come. Every person was like that. Every person had an opinion about something that was really exciting.

Another thing that I think was so fascinating about how things were done at the time at Figma was this deep intention around everything and moving slow. But moving slow with many things in parallel, like staggered, right? So from the outside, Figma would ship something every month, maybe even more often than that. But internally, a person would work on one thing for one year. And sometimes at the end of that one year, it would just go into the bin and never ship. So that I think was really cool to see from the inside and then having a very different effect on the outside.

That distinction matters in an AI tooling moment where output is getting cheap. Figma looked fast from the outside because slow, deliberate work was happening underneath. Speed at the surface depends on judgment below it.

On Inter:

One thing for sure is finding the right ratio between impact and effort. I think Inter is one of those things. Sure, I’ve spent like 10 years on it, and who knows how much of my time on it, right? So there’s a lot of effort behind it. But I think it’s one of those types of efforts that has a very disproportionate impact from the effort.

[…]

I gotta say though, something that is amazing about working at Typeface is, it’s something like, it’s almost like in the field of design, you might think about cars as a unique type of thing to design because it’s both like, and architecture’s a little bit like that too. It’s not strictly the sign as in signage for roads, right? It’s very technical and it’s not the sign as in expressing myself through art, like graphic design, like a poster, it’s somewhere magically in between.

And another aspect of it that’s kind of cool is that you can put in 10 minutes here and 10 hours there and they add up over time which I don’t think is true without a software because the rate of decay of any type of regular software is very high. Two weeks is my cutoff. If I have not worked on something for two weeks I have trashed it and start over but with a typeface like that decay is extremely extremely low, in some cases zero.

Tokyo Design Forum publishes former Facebook and Dropbox design leader Soleio’s closing talk from this year’s conference, where he previews a book-sized thesis called The Geometry of Luck. Soleio’s move is to treat luck less like a mood and more like a design problem: a question of arrangement, position, and conditions.

He starts with geometry because geometry gives the argument its discipline:

When we say something has a geometry, we mean it has structure.

Not just parts, but relationships between parts, distances, angles, arrangements that produce specific properties.

For example, a triangle just isn’t three lines, it’s three lines whose arrangement do something. The interior always sum to 180 degrees, no matter the triangle. That is geometry. It’s structure that produces reliable properties.

So when we talk about the geometry of a room, or the geometry of a negotiation, or the geometry of a network, we’re saying something very specific about its nature. We’re saying its composition, its arrangement, tells us more than a list of its parts.

That saves the talk from becoming another self-help riff on “making your own luck.” Soleio is more precise than that. He is saying luck has variables, and designers already understand the work of arranging variables toward a purpose. He links that to industrial designer and architect Charles Eames’s definition of design as a plan for arranging elements toward a purpose.

When something has a geometry, it can be measured, it can be reasoned about, it can be taught.

[…]

So geometry is a language of arrangement.

For designers, it’s like the vocabulary of our craft.

From there, the framework becomes practical:

I believe luck has three facets, three independent variables that work together in concert. They are the basic elements of good fortune.

The first I call orientation, how we perceive our environments and place ourselves within them.

The second is surface area, the degree to which we’ve made it easy for good fortune to find us.

And the third is novel action, our capacity to act on what we perceive, what we do with the opportunities that the universe presents to us.

The useful distinction here is agency without control. You don’t command the outcome. You arrange the conditions: what you can see, who can find you, and whether the value you create can keep circulating after it leaves your hands.

That is why the talk eventually turns back toward software design:

As software designers, we shape the environment where luck happens.

We are very, very lucky to be here in this room today.

Few inventions touch the fabric of people’s daily lives, such as software.

Every interface, every space, every system we create either amplifies or dampens the flow of opportunity for the people who encounter it.

With every over-the-air update we push to production, we alternate the networks through which luck flows.

And so I hope designers put as much consideration to luck as they do look and feel and utility.

I like that as a design brief. Not “be lucky.” Not “hustle harder.” Arrange yourself, your work, and your systems so more good fortune can pass through them. Test hypotheses. That is a useful bar for products too.

The line running through Tobias Van Schneider’s interview is simple: designers complain about tools all the time, but the better move is to build the environment you wish you had.

Nikolas Wrobel interviews designer Tobias Van Schneider, founder of Semplice and mymind, and the profile traces that pattern directly: Semplice for portfolios that didn’t fit the platform/template world, then mymind for thinking without the performative noise of social media.

Van Schneider:

How do you protect yourself against consuming, draining effects from Social Media, or disenchanting tech-mechanisms?

This question almost too perfectly leads into what I do everyday. In part, I protect myself by using mymind.com (which I created) — there are no ads, no vanity metrics, no social media features, nothing but myself. Only me and the things I care about. Over the years, mymind has become so valuable to me, it’s the first place I go to look for inspiration. In fact, while I am answering this interview, I find myself going back and forth between old notes and musings inside mymind.

Social media still drains me, just like everyone else, but it’s nice to at least have one place just for myself. And thats mymind.

Aside from that, I just get offline and out into the world. Or I create something.

Van Schneider isn’t pitching another social layer; he’s describing a private room for memory, taste, and reference.

He later explains where that product idea started:

As with many things, it was a total coincidence. When we initially worked on the mymind product and brand, we didn’t even have the name “mymind” yet. The whole thing was called AWMT, which stands for “As We May Think” and is a reference to an old essay by Vannevar Bush from 1945 in which he wrote about a machine called “The Memex” which was some sort of machine that collects and connects your personal knowledge.

Coming off of that inspiring essay, we came up with a slogan called “Think for yourself” which is sort of the antithesis to the cloud/hive mind of what we call social media today. Especially since we position mymind as a private sanctuary, it just made sense to us.

All of this eventually got me into the rabbit whole to search for ideas for our logo. The classic “Thinker” statue immediately came to mind. I always loved that one, a man deep inside his own thoughts, unfazed by the world around him. But the statue was a bit too literal to me, too well known, too sharp and serious. We needed something more abstract, more playful. Eventually I found out about Cycladic art, originating from the Aegean islands during the Early Bronze Age. Very famous for their minimal and stylized marble figurines. Now, the rest is history. I immediately fell in love with the simplicity of it and it felt like a great canvas to build our visual universe on it. The rest is history (:

Wrobel asks Van Schneider about the conditions he works best under:

The creative me enjoys being alone. Completely isolated, nobody even in the other room. It gives me freedom and clarity to think for myself and be myself. My real creative being thrives in these moments, untouched by the opinions and desires of others.

My ultimate solitude tends to arrive at midnight. It almost transforms me. The dark brings focus. Silence brings new ideas. No voices interrupt, no chance of emails, just me and my thoughts. It’s this time I feel most creatively alive.

Now, add a soundtrack to it and I’m in creative heaven (:

I don’t think every designer needs midnight solitude. But design work does need stretches where taste can form before it becomes consensus. In a work culture that treats collaboration as a default good, that distinction matters.

This is also why the tools question matters. A portfolio system, a private reference space, even a type foundry site are not neutral containers. They either protect the conditions where taste can develop, or they pull the work back toward the defaults of the platform. Van Schneider’s career makes that feel less like a manifesto and more like a working habit: when the available environment makes the work smaller, build a different environment, then keep using it until it changes the work.

Van Schneider’s favorite advice turns complaint into output:

“The best way to complain is to create something” by James Murphy, founder of LCD Soundsystem. It has become one of my guiding principles. It turns useless, negative energy into productive, positive energy.

Jess Eddy reaches back to the 19th-century pessimist Arthur Schopenhauer for the distinction senior creatives may worry about:

Talent is like the marksman who hits a target which others cannot reach; genius is like the marksman who hits a target which others cannot even see.

Eddy borrows a line from Jack Grapes, the poet and writing teacher: “Make me look good, and I’ll keep you on the payroll.” That’s the trap. The longer you’ve been at it, the more reliably your talent delivers, and the more expensive it gets to walk away from what works. Most career advice says lean into your strengths. Eddy says your strengths keep you aimed at targets you already know how to hit.

For experienced designers, those targets are getting harder to find. AI is changing what counts as design work and what tools do it, and the ground under the profession is moving with it. The reflex when the ground moves is to double down on the move you’ve already mastered. But the mastered move hits the visible target. The targets that come next won’t be visible yet.

Eddy doesn’t let anyone skip the mastery step. The 5–10-year window isn’t optional. But once you’ve put in the time, you have to walk away from the talent that made you reliable. Eddy closes with Grapes:

Talent does what it can, genius does what it must.

Brandon Harwood opens with Picasso’s Guernica. He asks you to look at the painting, then tells you the story behind it—the bombing of the Basque town, the civilian deaths, Picasso’s intention to communicate that horror—and asks you to look again.

If you didn’t know the story of this painting beforehand, now you do, and it might strike a different chord, if just slightly. The details of the painting now have the context that shows us what Picasso was thinking when he painted Guernica. […] It’s this kind of context that drives meaning in art. Guernica is not just a painting. It’s communication.

Harwood uses it to draw a line between what AI can generate (the aesthetics of a thing) and what humans build (the context that makes a thing communicate). His answer: instead of asking AI to make meaning, design around the fact that it can’t.

Meaning Machines are, at their core, “signifiers, randomized into a fixed grammar, and read for new meaning.” […] The randomized signifiers are the contextual data surrounding our creative pursuit, the data the AI is trained on, and the relationships built on that data through its training. These signifiers, the data, are then placed into a fixed grammar through agentive interaction and/or agentic actions, and the user can then interpret the result to stimulate their creativity, build new meaning, or explore ideas they might not have considered before.

Tarot doesn’t know what your week looks like. Oblique Strategies doesn’t know what song you’re stuck on. The cards work because they hand you raw material and you do the interpretation. Harwood’s claim is that an LLM, used right, can sit in that same chair. Provoke the human. Dr. Maya Ackerman calls this same arrangement “humble creative machines”: the AI is not the creator, it’s the prompt the creator responds to.

Harwood breaks co-creative AI into three roles:

The Puller: The AI system gathers information about the context the user is working in through active question generation and passive information collection on the works. […] The Pusher: The AI system uses some/none of this context to synthesize considerations for the user to employ throughout their creative journey. […] The Producer: The AI system creates artifacts for use as elements of the users’ larger creative output.

The Puller / Pusher / Producer vocabulary is what I wish more design teams had before they shipped their first AI feature. Each role is a constraint, a way to keep the human in the chair the work actually belongs in. Most AI tools for creatives flatten all three into one button that produces a finished thing. Harwood’s whole argument is that the finished thing is where the meaning has to originate; it can’t be the destination.

My recent newsletter, “Out of Your Head, Into the File,” made the case for getting taste out of your head: writing it down so it can survive the messy middle of an AI workflow. Mia Kiraki, writing in Robots Ate My Homework, picks up the other half of that problem: how taste erodes when you don’t.

Her central image is the Hansel and Gretel gingerbread house, recast:

AI output is the gingerbread. You’re tired, the deadline is close. The output IS the shelter. You eat it - of course you eat it. That’s what gingerbread is made for, right? […] The Grimms buried a much smarter lesson in the early pages, before the witch even shows up. Hansel drops breadcrumbs to mark his path through the forest and the birds eat every one. He still leaves them, though. Those breadcrumbs are your taste, every little choice you make on the page (this word, this angle, this risk) which leaves a marker of who you are. The forest will always try to erase them.

What’s specific to AI is the environment. It’s now optimized to wear taste down a percent at a time, in ways you can’t feel while it’s happening, until the work you used to do feels like someone else’s.

Kiraki puts the mechanism plainly:

If most of your reading this week was AI slop (which is pretty likely given the state of the internet), you trained your judgment on machine output. […] Each accepted sentence is a small vote for a lower standard. You accept a vague phrase because the deadline is close. You let a soft claim through because rewriting from scratch would cost an hour you don’t have. […] Taste dies slowly, when you wake up someday and read something you wrote six months ago and realize you used to sound so different. You had edges, took risks, made claims, and you sounded like a person who made choices.

Kiraki gets at the failure mode that follows once taste is the only real moat left.

Her counter:

Read work that operates at a higher standard than yours. Work where someone made choices you wouldn’t have made or took risks you would have edited out. Your taste calibrates upward when you expose it to judgment that outclasses your own. […] Practice the explanation. When something in your own work feels wrong, write down the reason. The specificity of your explanation is the weapon. […] Ship work that makes you nervous. If a piece feels comfortable to publish, you probably didn’t push hard enough. The pieces that make your stomach tighten show and prove your taste is working at full capacity.

The middle one is what that newsletter was about: writing down the reasons, not just the verdict. Kiraki adds the bookends. Read above your level so your baseline isn’t drifting toward consensus. Publish the version that scares you a little, because the version that doesn’t is the gingerbread.

Jake Albaugh wrote a piece on X called “Design is the work” that splits design from the artifacts it produces. Mocks, prototypes, screens, guidelines: those are outputs. Design itself, in his telling, is the upstream act of intent: figuring out what something should be and why, before anyone makes it. Bingo. That distinction matters now because AI is very good at the artifact and unable to do the deciding:

AI cannot do that part. You intend to do something that has not yet happened. You have to bring those parameters to the table to do anything novel. AI doesn’t know your constraints. It doesn’t know your strategy. It doesn’t know what moment in the market you’re in, what your team is trying to prove, or what your customers actually need versus what they’ve said they want. The expectation — the definition of what good looks like — is something only you can provide. AI’s job is to meet that expectation. Not to define it.

The piece made the case that intentionality has to come before execution and that AI changes neither requirement. The closer is where it gets interesting. After all that, Albaugh tells the reader he used AI to draft the essay:

It may surprise you to learn that I used AI to write this. The structure, the sentences, a lot of the phrasing — generated. But the argument existed before any of it. I knew what I was trying to say. I knew what examples mattered and which ones were wrong. I knew when a paragraph was close but not quite right, and I revised toward a target I’d already defined. […] That’s the point. The tools changed. The work didn’t. Design is the process. Design is the intentionality.

It’s a risky reveal. Most readers will read it as self-undermining at first. But the argument and the artifact are doing the same job: Albaugh had a target, and he used AI to reach it. The fact that the prose was generated is exactly why it matters that the argument wasn’t. He knew which examples belonged in the piece and which ones to throw out. The model couldn’t have known that either way, because the criteria for “good” didn’t exist anywhere outside his head until he wrote them down.

Karri Saarinen made a version of this same split when he argued that output isn’t design. The hard part is understanding the problem well enough to know what should exist at all.

You’ve seen it in all the photos from various No Kings protests. The most-shared peace poster of the year did not start with a client. Daniel John, writing in Creative Bloq, traces Warsaw calligrapher Barbara Galińska’s two-tone “STOP WAR” piece. Galińska, in an artist statement quoted by John, describes where it came from:

My graphic “STOP WAR!” was created as a result of an international calligraphy challenge in November 2023, the main goal of which was to stimulate the creativity of artists. My reaction to the assigned theme “Stop war!” was to move away from typical calligraphy towards a powerful work that addresses the global problem of war. So my main personal challenge was to find a new, original solution to the well-known phrase “Stop war!” and transform it into a graphically powerful universal symbol for peace.

Matt Ström-Awn, writing on his personal site, picks up a three-year-old line from Ted Chiang and turns it inside out:

Three years ago, Ted Chiang described ChatGPT as a blurry JPEG of the web. LLMs are a lossy compression of their training data, which is itself a lossy sample of all the data available to it. But the artifacts we see in AI slop aren’t in the compression. They’re in the decompression.

Every AI-generated output is an extrapolation from that blurry source, vectored toward your prompt, filling in plausible detail where the compression threw information away. The output gets inflated into blog posts and LinkedIn thoughtspam, software platforms, omnichannel advertising campaigns, and movie cameos from dead actors. Chiang compared the gaps and confabulations to compression artifacts.

I think they’re expansion artifacts.

Chiang had the compression metaphor; what we needed was a word for what these tools do on the way back out, and Ström-Awn gave us one.

Ström-Awn lists what expansion artifacts look like across modalities:

• LLMs produce text stuffed with hedging verbs and fuzzing adjectives (delve, intricate, tapestry, multifaceted). Their paragraphs are structured as miniature essays with setup, payoff, and a signposted takeaway (This matters because…).
• AI-generated code over-comments the obvious and creates error handlers for operations that can’t logically fail.
• Image generators have had their own tells: six-fingered hands, symmetrical-but-stylistically-objectionable jewelry, text that looks like text but only if you cross your eyes.
• Video models struggle with continuity. Limbs appear and disappear, objects clip through each other, and physics sometimes just switches off.

Each of these artifacts is the training distribution leaking through where the model’s confidence runs thin.

Ström-Awn writes about the designer-specific tells too:

Power users of AI website generators (AI-pilled designers) already know how to recognize the tool marks, if only to try to prompt them away: purple gradients are an especially common tell. But as more and more non-designers use tools like Claude Design to prompt their way to fully-functional software products, I expect to see a preference for the aesthetic convergence endemic to the current crop of AI models.

Humans are the bread in the sandwich, and the AI is in the middle.

That’s Dan Shipper on his podcast AI & I, talking with Every’s Kieran Klaassen, the engineer behind the compound engineering plugin. They’re working out where humans actually belong in an AI-driven workflow. It’s the same split showing up on the design side.

Klaassen, on the polish step at the end of the work:

The other moment comes at the end. Something comes out. How do you validate it? Well, it’s already tested—browser automated testing has clicked through everything, all the requirements are clearly specified, and it says everything works. But the beauty comes in when a human looks at it, clicks around, and has a feel for it: “Oh, this doesn’t feel right. We can polish it. We can make it better. There’s something still missing. We can make the design better.” […] all the way at the end, when everything is done, you can elevate everything and make it even better. And I think we need to do that, because if we don’t, it will all be slop—all the same. It’s very important to make it feel great because the bar is high, and the bar will always get higher.

“It will all be slop” is the line every team should have taped to a monitor. A passing test suite and a green PR don’t tell you whether the thing is actually any good. That judgment still lives with a human at the end of the workflow. Klaassen is correct that the bar keeps moving up, not down, and the teams who treat the polish step as optional are the ones whose products will look interchangeable in twelve months.

Klaassen, on the art-and-ownership argument:

But I do think that in the end, if you ship something—if you make a statement in the world—and you want it to be your own, you have to say yes or no at some point. You cannot fully automate everything. It’s a bit like making art. If you want it to be yours, it needs to come from you or somehow be connected. So I believe having those moments where you decide—where you choose what you enjoy—is so important. That’s why it’s so important to do things you enjoy and love.

Whatever your version of beautiful is, that’s the bread. Everything else is filling.

Design orgs and publications have been issuing AI bans, calling them principled responses to job displacement, training data theft, and the degradation of craft. The impulse is understandable: AI doesn’t just replace tools; it challenges what made you worth hiring, and the prospect of losing what you’ve built is felt more sharply than any potential gain. Christopher Butler thinks those lines are drawn in the wrong place:

By drawing hard lines against entire categories of tools, we’re mistaking the means for the problem itself, and in doing so, we’re limiting our ability to shape how these technologies integrate into creative work.

Butler doesn’t dismiss the concerns driving those bans: training data problems, corporate consolidation, job displacement. He thinks they’re legitimate and urgent. His objection is to making the tool the target rather than the behavior. Drawing the line at AI, he argues, repeats the mistake designers made at the letterpress and again at paste-up. The technology changed. The question—about authorship, judgment, and what craft actually requires—stayed the same.

Butler’s conclusion:

A designer who uses AI to plagiarize another artist’s style with a simple prompt is engaged in something fundamentally different from one who trains a tool to extend their own creative capacity. A writer who publishes purely generated text as their own work is making a different choice than one who uses AI as a thinking partner and editor while maintaining authorship over their ideas and voice. These distinctions matter more than blanket prohibitions.

Discernment in practice means asking: Am I using this tool to extend my own capabilities or to replicate someone else’s work? Am I shaping the output or simply accepting what’s generated? Does this use serve my creative vision or just expedite a result? These aren’t always easy questions, but they’re the right ones.

Butler himself is the illustration. He spent months training Claude on a 10,000-word skill file—the accumulated context of his subject matter and his voice—building a sounding board and editor that already knows his context. He still writes without it. He says some of his best writing has come from working with it. The output may be indistinguishable to most readers. The difference, he says, is real to him.

The choice isn’t between purity and complicity, between craft and automation. It’s between engagement and abdication—between shaping how these tools develop and how they’re used, or ceding that ground entirely to those with the least interest in protecting what we value about creative work.

“Taste is the scarce thing” has become shorthand for what designers still own in the AI era. I’ve written about it in the abstract more than once. Chris R Becker, writing for UX Collective, opens with an old Marshall McLuhan-era line—“we shape our tools and then our tools shape us”—and then shows how to keeping doing the shaping.

Becker cites the Steve Jobs-attributed 10-80-10 rule:

Start away from any AI. Use the 10–80–10 rule. 10% away thinking, defining, establishing vision. 80% making use of AI to assist the vision. 10% away from AI critiquing, testing, and evaluating the solution.

The bookends are the work. Both 10% slots sit explicitly away from the model, which is another way of saying they’re the judgment layer. The first defines what good looks like before inviting AI in. The second evaluates what came out. AI collapses the cost of the 80%, which is the whole productivity story. But that collapse means the bookends are no longer preamble and postscript. They’re most of the job.

Becker gets at why the closing 10% matters:

The authority bestowed on institutions, educators, and SMEs (subject matter experts) is being absorbed by AI and spread thin like butter on toast. An AI appears to slather knowledge evenly, but the quality of the knowledge butter is deliberately made opaque.

AI output arrives looking uniformly authoritative, the same confident tone whether the underlying source is a peer-reviewed paper or a forum post from 2013. Provenance gets flattened. Without a prior standard to judge against, the designer reviewing output has nothing to push back on. That’s Becker’s larger point:

The irony, I suppose, is that Designers are, hopefully, trained not to be “yes men” but rather to ask hard questions, challenge the prevailing motivations of business over our users, and, most importantly, find the root cause of the problem, rather than just the surface reaction. AI, unfortunately, is not built to push back; it will not say… “I don’t know,” or “I think that is a bad idea,” or “what if you did this… instead,” or “I understand YOU (CEO) wants this feature, but the user research and ‘our users’ want something different.” AI is designed to serve, and in the hands of people in an organization who are looking for the least amount of pushback, it is a recipe for deep institutional implementation and, frankly, a lot of bad ideas, fast.

“A recipe for deep institutional implementation.” A sycophantic tool plus an organization that wants frictionless agreement equals speed in the wrong direction. The 10-80-10 rule is a personal discipline. What’s still unresolved is how teams build that discipline into the process before the wrong direction becomes the default.