With their annual user conference, Config, coming up in San Francisco in less than two weeks, Figma released their 2025 AI Report today.

Andrew Hogan, Insights lead:

While developers and designers alike recognize the importance of integrating AI into their workflows, and overall adoption of AI tools has increased, there’s a disconnect in sentiment around quality and efficacy between the two groups.

Developers report higher satisfaction with AI tools (82%) and feel AI improves the quality of their work (68%). Meanwhile, designers show more modest numbers—69% satisfaction rate and 54% reporting quality improvement—suggesting this group’s enthusiasm lags behind their developer counterparts.

This divide stems from how AI can support existing work and how it’s being used: 59% of developers use AI for core development responsibilities like code generation, whereas only 31% of designers use AI in core design work like asset generation. It’s also likely that AI’s ability to generate code is coming into play—68% of developers say they use prompts to generate code, and 82% say they’re satisfied with the output. Simply put, developers are more widely finding AI adoption useful in their day-to-day work, while designers are still working to determine how and if these tools best fit into their processes.

I can understand that. Code is behind the scenes. If it’s not perfect, no one will really know. But design is user-facing, so quality is more important.

Looking into the future:

Though AI’s impact on efficiency is clear, there are still questions about how to use AI to make people better at their role. This disparity between efficiency and quality is an ongoing battle for users and creators alike.

…

Looking forward, predictions about the impact of AI on work are moderate—AI’s expected impact for the coming year isn’t much higher than its expected impact last year.

In the full report, Hogan details out:

Only 27% predict AI will have a significant impact on their company goals in the next year (compared to 23% in 2024), with 15% saying it will be transformational (unchanged year-over-year).

The survey was taken in January with a panel of 2,500 users. Things in AI change in weeks. I’m surprised at the number and part of me believes that a lot of designers are hiding their heads in the sand. AI is coming. We should be agile and adapt.

While Josh W. Comeau writes for his developer audience, a lot of what he says can be applied to design. Referring to a recent Forbes article:

AI may be generating 25% of the code that gets committed at Google, but it’s not acting independently. A skilled human developer is in the driver’s seat, using their knowledge and experience to guide the AI, editing and shaping its output, and mixing it in with the code they’ve written. As far as I know, 100% of code at Google is still being created by developers. AI is just one of many tools they use to do their job.

In other words, developers are editing and curating the output of AI, just like where I believe the design discipline will end up soon.

On incorporating Cursor into his workflow:

And that’s kind of a problem for the “no more developers” theory. If I didn’t know how to code, I wouldn’t notice the subtle-yet-critical issues with the model’s output. I wouldn’t know how to course-correct, or even realize that course-correction was required!

I’ve heard from no-coders who have built projects using LLMs, and their experience is similar. They start off strong, but eventually reach a point where they just can’t progress anymore, no matter how much they coax the AI. The code is a bewildering mess of non sequiturs, and beyond a certain point, no amount of duct tape can keep it together. It collapses under its own weight.

I’ve noticed that too. For a non-coder like me, rebuilding this website yet again—I need to write a post about it—has been a challenge. But I knew and learned enough to get something out there that works. But yes, relying solely on AI for any professional work right now is precarious. It still requires guidance.

On the current job market for developers and the pace of AI:

It seems to me like we’ve reached the point in the technology curve where progress starts becoming more incremental; it’s been a while since anything truly game-changing has come out. Each new model is a little bit better, but it’s more about improving the things it already does well rather than conquering all-new problems.

This is where I will disagree with him. I think the AI labs are holding back the super-capable models that they are using internally. Tools like Claude Code and the newly-released OpenAI Codex are clues that the foundational model AI companies have more powerful agents behind-the-scenes. And those agents are building the next generation of models.

Karri Saarinen, writing for the Linear blog:

Unbounded AI, much like a river without banks, becomes powerful but directionless. Designers need to build the banks and bring shape to the direction of AI’s potential. But we face a fundamental tension in that AI sort of breaks our usual way of designing things, working back from function, and shaping the form.

I love the metaphor of AI being the a river and we designers are the banks. Feels very much in line with my notion that we need to become even better curators.

Saarinen continues, critiquing the generic chatbox being the primary form of interacting with AI:

One way I visualize this relationship between the form of traditional UI and the function of AI is through the metaphor of a ‘workbench’. Just as a carpenter’s workbench is familiar and purpose-built, providing an organized environment for tools and materials, a well-designed interface can create productive context for AI interactions. Rather than being a singular tool, the workbench serves as an environment that enhances the utility of other tools – including the ‘magic’ AI tools.

Software like Linear serves as this workbench. It provides structure, context, and a specialized environment for specific workflows. AI doesn’t replace the workbench, it’s a powerful new tool to place on top of it.

It’s interesting. I don’t know what Linear is telegraphing here, but if I had to guess, I wonder if it’s closer to being field-specific or workflow-specific, similar to Generative Fill in Photoshop. It’s a text field—not textarea—limited to a single workflow.

Sarah Gibbons and Evan Sunwall from NN/g:

The rise of AI tools doesn’t mean becoming a “unicorn” who can do everything perfectly. Specialization will remain valuable in our field: there will still be dedicated researchers, content strategists, and designers.

However, AI is broadening the scope of what any individual can accomplish, regardless of their specific expertise.

What we’re seeing isn’t the elimination of specialization but rather an increased value placed on expanding the top of a professional’s “expertise T.”

This reinforces what I talked about in a previous essay, “T-shaped skills [will become] increasingly valuable—depth in one area with breadth across others.”

They go on to say:

We believe these broad skills will coalesce into experience designer and architect roles: people who direct AI-supported design tasks to craft experiences for humans and AI agents alike, while ensuring that the resulting work reflects well-researched, strategic thinking.

In other words, curation of the work that AI does.

They also make the point that designers need to be strategic, i.e., focus on the why:

This evolution means that the unique value we bring as UX professionals is shifting decidedly toward strategic thinking and leadership. While AI can execute tasks, it cannot independently understand the complex human and organizational contexts in which our work exists.

Finally, Gibbons and Sunwall end with some solid advice:

To adapt to this shift toward generalist skills, UX professionals should focus on 4 key areas: • Developing a learning mindset • Becoming fluent in AI collaboration • Focusing on transferable skills • Expanding into adjacent fields

I appreciate the learning mindset bit, since that’s how I’m wired. I also believe that collaborating with AI is the way to go, rather than seeing it as a replacement or a threat.

Steven Kurtz, writing for The New York Times:

For many of the Gen X-ers who embarked on creative careers in the years after [Douglas Coupland’s Generation X] was published, lessness has come to define their professional lives.

If you entered media or image-making in the ’90s — magazine publishing, newspaper journalism, photography, graphic design, advertising, music, film, TV — there’s a good chance that you are now doing something else for work. That’s because those industries have shrunk or transformed themselves radically, shutting out those whose skills were once in high demand.

My first assumption was that Kurtz was writing about AI and how it’s taking away all the creative jobs. Instead, he weaves together a multifactorial illustration about the diminishing value of commercial creative endeavors like photography, music, filmmaking, copywriting, and design.

“My peers, friends and I continue to navigate the unforeseen obsolescence of the career paths we chose in our early 20s,” Mr. Wilcha said. “The skills you cultivated, the craft you honed — it’s just gone. It’s startling.”

Every generation has its burdens. The particular plight of Gen X is to have grown up in one world only to hit middle age in a strange new land. It’s as if they were making candlesticks when electricity came in. The market value of their skills plummeted.

It’s more than AI, although certainly, that is top of everyone’s mind these days. Instead, it’s also stock photography and illustrations, graphic templates, the consolidation of ad agencies, the revolutionary rise of social media, and the tragic fall of traditional media.

Similar shifts have taken place in music, television and film. Software like Pro Tools has reduced the need for audio engineers and dedicated recording studios; A.I., some fear, may soon take the place of actual musicians. Streaming platforms typically order fewer episodes per season than the networks did in the heyday of “Friends” and “ER.” Big studios have slashed budgets, making life for production crews more financially precarious.

Earlier this year, I cited Baldur Bjarnason’s essay about the changing economics of web development. As an opening analogy, he referenced the shifting landscape of film and television.

Born in 1973, I am squarely in Generation X. I started my career in the design and marketing industry just as the internet was taking off. So I know exactly what the interviewees of Kurtz’s article are facing. But by dogged tenacity and sheer luck, I’ve been able to pivot and survive. Am I still a graphic designer like I was back in the mid-1990s? Nope. I’m more of a product designer now, which didn’t exist 30 years ago, and which is a subtle but distinct shift from UX designer, which has existed for about 20 years.

I’ve been lucky enough to ride the wave with the times, always remembering my core purpose.