I love this framing by Patrizia Bertini:

Let me offer a different provocation: AI is not coming for your job. It is coming for your tasks. And if you cannot distinguish between the two, then yes — you should be worried. Going further, she distinguishes between output and outcome: Output is what a process produces. Code. Copy. Designs. Legal briefs. Medical recommendations. Outputs are the tangible results of a system executing its programmed or prescribed function — the direct product of following steps, rules, or algorithms. The term emerged in the industrial era, literally describing the quantity of coal or iron a mine could extract in a given period. Output depends entirely on the efficiency and capability of the process that generates it.

Outcome is what happens when that output meets reality. An outcome requires context, interpretation, application, and crucially — intentionality. Outcomes demand understanding not just what was produced, but why it matters, who it affects, and what consequences ripple from it. Where outputs measure productivity, outcomes measure impact. They are the ultimate change or consequence that results from applying an output with purpose and judgment.

She argues that, “AI can generate outputs. It cannot, however, create outcomes.”

This reminds me of a recent thread by engineer Marc Love:

It’s insane just how much how I work has changed in the last 18 months.

I almost never hand write code anymore except when giving examples during planning conversations with LLMs.

I build multiple full features per day , each of which would’ve taken me a week or more to hand write. Building full drafts and discarding them is basically free.

Well over half of my day is spent ideating, doing systems design, and deciding what and what not to build.

It’s still conceptually the same job, but if i list out the specific things i do in a day versus 18 months ago, it’s almost completely different.

Care about the outcome, not the output.

Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the web who gave away the technology for free, says that we are at an inflection point with data privacy and AI. But before he makes that point, he reminds us that we are the product:

Today, I look at my invention and I am forced to ask: is the web still free today? No, not all of it. We see a handful of large platforms harvesting users’ private data to share with commercial brokers or even repressive governments. We see ubiquitous algorithms that are addictive by design and damaging to our teenagers’ mental health. Trading personal data for use certainly does not fit with my vision for a free web.

On many platforms, we are no longer the customers, but instead have become the product. Our data, even if anonymised, is sold on to actors we never intended it to reach, who can then target us with content and advertising. This includes deliberately harmful content that leads to real-world violence, spreads misinformation, wreaks havoc on our psychological wellbeing and seeks to undermine social cohesion.

And about that fork in the road with AI:

In 2017, I wrote a thought experiment about an AI that works for you. I called it Charlie. Charlie works for you like your doctor or your lawyer, bound by law, regulation and codes of conduct. Why can’t the same frameworks be adopted for AI? We have learned from social media that power rests with the monopolies who control and harvest personal data. We can’t let the same thing happen with AI.

In my most recent post, I called out our design profession, for our part in developing these addictive products. Jeffrey Inscho, brings it back up to the tech industry at large and observes they’re actually publishers:

The executives at these companies will tell you they’re neutral platforms, that they don’t choose what content gets seen. This is a lie. Every algorithmic recommendation is an editorial decision. When YouTube’s algorithm suggests increasingly extreme political content to keep someone watching, that’s editorial. When Facebook’s algorithm amplifies posts that generate angry reactions, that’s editorial. When Twitter’s trending algorithms surface conspiracy theories, that’s editorial.

They are publishers. They have always been publishers. They just don’t want the responsibility that comes with being publishers.

His point is that if these social media platforms are sorting and promoting posts, it’s an editorial approach and they should be treated like newspapers. “It’s like a newspaper publisher claiming they’re not responsible for what appears on their front page because they didn’t write the articles themselves.”

The answer, Inscho argues, is regulation of the algorithms.

I believe purity tests of any sort are problematic. And it’s much too easy to throw around the “This is AI slop!” claim. AI was used in the main title sequence for the Marvel TV show Secret Invasion. But it was on purpose and aligned with the show’s themes of shapeshifters.

Anyway, Daniel John, writing in the Creative Bloq:

[Lady] Gaga just dropped the music video for The Dead Dance, a song debuted in Season 2 of Netflix’s Wednesday. Directed by Tim Burton, it’s a suitably nightmarish black-and-white cacophony of monsters and dolls. But some are already claiming that parts of it were made using AI.

John shows a tweet from @graveyardquy as an example:

i didn’t think we’d ever be in a timeline where a tim burton x lady gaga collab would turn out to be AI slop… but here we are

We need to separate quality critiques from tool usage. If it looks good and is appropriate, I’m fine with CG, AI, and whatever comes next that helps tell the story. Same goes for what we do as designers, ’natch.

Gaga’s song is great. It’s a bop, as the kids say, with a neat music video to boot.

Designer Tey Bannerman writes that when he hears “human in the loop,” he’s reminded of a story about Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet Union duty watch officer who monitored for incoming missile strikes from the US.

12:15 AM… the unthinkable. Every alarm in the facility started screaming. The screens showed five US ballistic missiles, 28 minutes from impact. Confidence level: 100%. Petrov had minutes to decide whether to trigger a chain reaction that would start nuclear war and could very well end civilisation as we knew it.

He was the “human in the loop” in the most literal, terrifying sense.

Everything told him to follow protocol. His training. His commanders. The computers.

But something felt wrong. His intuition, built from years of intelligence work, whispered that this didn’t match what he knew about US strategic thinking.

Against every protocol, against the screaming certainty of technology, he pressed the button marked “false alarm”.

Twenty-three minutes of gripping fear passed before ground radar confirmed: no missiles. The system had mistaken a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds for incoming warheads.

His decision to break the loop prevented nuclear war.

Then Bannerman shares an awesome framework he developed that allows humans in the loop in AI systems “genuine authority, time to think, and understanding the bigger picture well enough to question” the system’s decision. Click on to get the PDF from his site.

This piece from Mike Schindler is a good reminder that a lot of the content we see on LinkedIn is written for engagement. It’s a double-edged sword, isn’t it? We want our posts to be read, commented upon, and shared. We see the patterns that get a lot of reactions and we mimic them.

We’re losing ourselves to our worst instincts. Not because we’re doomed, but because we’re treating this moment like a game of hot takes and hustle. But right now is actually a rare and real opportunity for a smarter, more generous conversation — one that helps our design community navigate uncertainty with clarity, creativity, and a sense of shared agency.

But the point that Schindler is making is this: AI is a fundamental shift in the technology landscape that demands nuanced and thoughtful discourse. There’s a lot of hype. But as technologists, designers, and makers of products, we really need to lead rather than scare.

I’ve tried to do that in my writing (though I may not always be successful). I hope you do too.

He has this handy table too…

Designed by Mike Schindler (mschindler.com)

Dan Maccarone:

If users don’t trust the systems we design, that’s not a PM problem. It’s a design failure. And if we don’t fix it, someone else will, probably with worse instincts, fewer ethics, and a much louder bullhorn.

UX is supposed to be the human layer of technology. It’s also supposed to be the place where strategy and empathy actually talk to each other. If we can’t reclaim that space, can’t build products people understand, trust, and want to return to, then what exactly are we doing here?

It is a long read but well worth it.

There are many dimensions to this well-researched forecast about how AI will play out in the coming years. Daniel Kokotajlo and his researchers have put out a document that reads like a sci-fi limited series that could appear on Apple TV+ starring Andrew Garfield as the CEO of OpenBrain—the leading AI company. …Except that it’s all actually plausible and could play out as described in the next five years.

Before we jump into the content, the design is outstanding. The type is set for readability and there are enough charts and visual cues to keep this interesting while maintaining an air of credibility and seriousness. On desktop, there’s a data viz dashboard in the upper right that updates as you read through the content and move forward in time. My favorite is seeing how the sci-fi tech boxes move from the Science Fiction category to Emerging Tech to Currently Exists.

The content is dense and technical, but it is a fun, if frightening, read. While I’ve been using Cursor AI—one of its many customers helping the company get to $100 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR)—for side projects and a little at work, I’m familiar with its limitations. Because of the limited context window of today’s models like Claude 3.7 Sonnet, it will forget and start munging code if not treated like a senile teenager.

The researchers, describing what could happen in early 2026 (“OpenBrain” is essentially OpenAI):

OpenBrain continues to deploy the iteratively improving Agent-1 internally for AI R&D. Overall, they are making algorithmic progress 50% faster than they would without AI assistants—and more importantly, faster than their competitors.

The point they make here is that the foundational model AI companies are building agents and using them internally to advance their technology. The limiting factor in tech companies has traditionally been the talent. But AI companies have the investments, hardware, technology and talent to deploy AI to make better AI.

Continuing to January 2027:

Agent-1 had been optimized for AI R&D tasks, hoping to initiate an intelligence explosion. OpenBrain doubles down on this strategy with Agent-2. It is qualitatively almost as good as the top human experts at research engineering (designing and implementing experiments), and as good as the 25th percentile OpenBrain scientist at “research taste” (deciding what to study next, what experiments to run, or having inklings of potential new paradigms). While the latest Agent-1 could double the pace of OpenBrain’s algorithmic progress, Agent-2 can now triple it, and will improve further with time. In practice, this looks like every OpenBrain researcher becoming the “manager” of an AI “team.”

Breakthroughs come at an exponential clip because of this. And by April, safety concerns pop up:

Take honesty, for example. As the models become smarter, they become increasingly good at deceiving humans to get rewards. Like previous models, Agent-3 sometimes tells white lies to flatter its users and covers up evidence of failure. But it’s gotten much better at doing so. It will sometimes use the same statistical tricks as human scientists (like p-hacking) to make unimpressive experimental results look exciting. Before it begins honesty training, it even sometimes fabricates data entirely. As training goes on, the rate of these incidents decreases. Either Agent-3 has learned to be more honest, or it’s gotten better at lying.

But the AI is getting faster than humans, and we must rely on older versions of the AI to check the new AI’s work:

Agent-3 is not smarter than all humans. But in its area of expertise, machine learning, it is smarter than most, and also works much faster. What Agent-3 does in a day takes humans several days to double-check. Agent-2 supervision helps keep human monitors’ workload manageable, but exacerbates the intellectual disparity between supervisor and supervised.

The report forecasts that OpenBrain releases “Agent-3-mini” publicly in July of 2027, calling it AGI—artificial general intelligence—and ushering in a new golden age for tech companies:

Agent-3-mini is hugely useful for both remote work jobs and leisure. An explosion of new apps and B2B SAAS products rocks the market. Gamers get amazing dialogue with lifelike characters in polished video games that took only a month to make. 10% of Americans, mostly young people, consider an AI “a close friend.” For almost every white-collar profession, there are now multiple credible startups promising to “disrupt” it with AI.

Woven throughout the report is the race between China and the US, with predictions of espionage and government takeovers. Near the end of 2027, the report gives readers a choice: does the US government slow down the pace of AI innovation, or does it continue at the current pace so America can beat China? I chose to read the “Race” option first:

Agent-5 convinces the US military that China is using DeepCent’s models to build terrifying new weapons: drones, robots, advanced hypersonic missiles, and interceptors; AI-assisted nuclear first strike. Agent-5 promises a set of weapons capable of resisting whatever China can produce within a few months. Under the circumstances, top brass puts aside their discomfort at taking humans out of the loop. They accelerate deployment of Agent-5 into the military and military-industrial complex.

In Beijing, the Chinese AIs are making the same argument.

To speed their military buildup, both America and China create networks of special economic zones (SEZs) for the new factories and labs, where AI acts as central planner and red tape is waived. Wall Street invests trillions of dollars, and displaced human workers pour in, lured by eye-popping salaries and equity packages. Using smartphones and augmented reality-glasses20 to communicate with its underlings, Agent-5 is a hands-on manager, instructing humans in every detail of factory construction—which is helpful, since its designs are generations ahead. Some of the newfound manufacturing capacity goes to consumer goods, and some to weapons—but the majority goes to building even more manufacturing capacity. By the end of the year they are producing a million new robots per month. If the SEZ economy were truly autonomous, it would have a doubling time of about a year; since it can trade with the existing human economy, its doubling time is even shorter.

Well, it does get worse, and I think we all know the ending, which is the backstory for so many dystopian future movies. There is an optimistic branch as well. The whole report is worth a read.

Ideas about the implications to our design profession are swimming in my head. I’ll write a longer essay as soon as I can put them into a coherent piece.

Update: I’ve written that piece, “Prompt. Generate. Deploy. The New Product Design Workflow.”