I recently spent some time to move my entire note-taking system away from Notion to Obsidian because the latter runs on Markdown files, which are text files. Why? Because AI runs on text.

And that is also the argument from Patrick Morgan. Your notes, your documented processes, your collected examples of what “good” looks like—if those live in plain text, AI can actually work with them. If they live in your head, or scattered across tools that don’t export, they’re invisible.

There’s a difference between having a fleeting conversation and collaborating on an asset you both work on. When your thinking lives in plain text — especially Markdown — it becomes legible not just to you, but to an AI that can read across hundreds of files, notice patterns, and act at scale.

I like that he frames this as scaffolding rather than some elaborate knowledge management system. He’s honest about the PKM fatigue most of us share:

Personal knowledge management is far from a new concept. Honestly, it’s a topic I started to ignore because too many people were trying to sell me on yet another “life changing” system. Even when I tried to jump through the hoops, it was all just too much for me for too little return. But now that’s changed. With AI, the value is much greater and the barrier to entry much lower. I don’t need an elaborate system. I just need to get my thinking in text so I can share it with my AI.

This is the part that matters for designers. We externalize visual thinking all the time—moodboards, style tiles, component libraries. But we rarely externalize the reasoning behind those decisions in a format that’s portable and machine-readable. Why did we choose that pattern? What were we reacting against? What does “good” look like for this particular problem?

Morgan’s practical recommendation is dead simple: three markdown files. One for process, one for taste, one for raw thinking. That’s it.

This is how your private thinking becomes shared context.

The designers who start doing this now will have documented judgment that AI can actually use.

Many designers I’ve worked with want to get to screens as fast as possible. Open Figma, start laying things out, figure out the structure as they go. It works often enough that nobody questions it. But Daniel Rosenberg makes a case for why it shouldn’t be the default.

Rosenberg, writing for the Interaction Design Foundation, argues that the conceptual model—the objects users manipulate, the actions they perform, and the attributes they change—should be designed before anyone touches a screen:

Even before you sketch your first screen it is beneficial to develop a designer’s conceptual model and use it as the baseline for guiding all future interaction design decisions.

Rosenberg maps this to natural language. Objects are nouns. Actions are verbs. Attributes are adjectives. The way these elements relate to each other is the grammar of your interface. Get the grammar wrong and no amount of visual polish will save you.

His example is painfully simple. A tax e-sign system asked him to “ENTER a PIN” when he’d never used the system before. There was no PIN to enter. The action should have been “CREATE.” One wrong verb and a UX expert with 40 years of experience couldn’t complete the task. His accountant confirmed that dozens of clients had called thinking the system was broken.

Rosenberg on why this cascades:

A suboptimal decision on any lower layer will cascade through all the layers above. This is why designing the conceptual model grammar with the lowest cognitive complexity at the very start… is so powerful.

This is the part I want my team to internalize. When you jump straight to screens, you’re making grammar decisions implicitly—choosing verbs for buttons, deciding which objects to surface, grouping attributes in panels. You’re doing conceptual modeling whether you know it or not. The question is whether you’re doing it deliberately.

Everyone wants to talk about the AI use case. Nobody wants to talk about the work that makes the use case possible.

Erika Flowers, who led NASA’s AI readiness initiative, has a great metaphor for this on the Invisible Machines podcast. Her family builds houses, and before they could install a high-tech steel roof, they spent a week building scaffolding, setting up tarps, rigging safety harnesses, positioning dumpsters for debris. The scaffolding wasn’t the job. But without it, the job couldn’t happen.

Flowers on where most organizations are with AI right now:

We are trying to just climb up on these roofs with our most high tech pneumatic nail gun and we got all these tools and stuff and we haven’t clipped off to our belay gear. We don’t have the scaffolding set up. We don’t have the tarps and the dumpsters to catch all the debris. We just want to get up there. That is the state of AI and transformation.

The scaffolding is the boring stuff: data integration, governance, connected workflows, organizational readiness. It’s context engineering at the enterprise level. Before any AI feature can do real work, someone has to make sure it has the right data, the right permissions, and the right place in a process. Nobody wants to fund that part.

But Flowers goes further. She argues we’re not just skipping the scaffolding—we’re automating the wrong things entirely. Her example: accounting software uses AI to help you build a spreadsheet faster, then you email it to someone who extracts the one number they actually needed. Why not just ask the AI for the number? We’re using new technology to speed up old workflows instead of asking whether the workflow should exist at all.

Then she gets to the interesting question—who’s supposed to design all of this?

I don’t think it exists necessarily with the roles that we have. It’s going to be a lot closer to Hollywood… producer, director, screenwriter. And I don’t mean as metaphors, I mean literally those people and how they think and how they do it because we’re in a post software era.

She lists therapists, psychologists, wedding planners, dance choreographers. People who know how to choreograph human interactions without predetermined inputs. That’s a different skill set than designing screens, and I think she’s onto something.

Every few months a new AI term drops and everyone scrambles to sound smart about it. Context engineering. RAG. Agent memory. MCP.

Tal Raviv and Aman Khan, writing for Lenny’s Newsletter, built an interactive piece that has you learn these concepts by doing them inside Cursor. It’s part article, part hands-on tutorial. But the best parts are when they strip the terms down to what they actually are:

Let that sink in: memory is just a text file prepended to every conversation. There’s no magic here.

That’s it. Agent memory, the thing that sounds like science fiction, is a text file that gets pasted at the top of every chat. Once you know that, you can design for it. You can think about what belongs in that file and what doesn’t, what’s worth the context window space and what’s noise.

They do the same with RAG:

RAG is a fancy term for “Before I start talking, I gotta go look everything up and read it first.” Despite the technical name, you’ve been doing it your whole life. Before answering a hard question, you look things up. Agents do the same.

Tool calling gets the same treatment. The agent reads a file, decides what to change, and uses a tool to make the edit. As Raviv and Khan point out, you’ve done search-and-replace in Word a hundred times.

Their conclusion ties it together:

Cursor is just an AI product like any other, composed of text, tools, and results flowing back into more text—except Cursor runs locally on our computer, so we can watch it work and learn. Once we were able to break down any AI product into these same building blocks, our AI product sense came naturally.

This matters for designers. You can’t design well for systems you don’t understand, and you can’t understand systems buried under layers of jargon. The moment someone tells you “memory is just a text file,” you can start asking the right design questions: what goes in it? Who controls it? How does the user know it’s working?

The whole piece is a step-by-step tutorial for PMs, but the underlying lesson is universal. Strip the mystique, see the mechanics, design for what’s actually there.

Daniel Miessler pulls an idea from a recent Karpathy interview that’s been rattling around in my head since I read it:

Humans collapse during the course of their lives. Children haven’t overfit yet. They will say stuff that will shock you because they’re not yet collapsed. But we [adults] are collapsed. We end up revisiting the same thoughts, we end up saying more and more of the same stuff, the learning rates go down, the collapse continues to get worse, and then everything deteriorates.

Miessler’s description of what this looks like in practice is uncomfortable:

How many older people do you know who tell the same stories and jokes over and over? Watch the same shows. Listen to the same five bands, and then eventually two. Their aperture slowly shrinks until they die.

I’ve seen this in designers. The ones who peaked early and never pushed past what worked for them. Their work from five years ago looks exactly like their work today. Same layouts, same patterns, same instincts applied to every problem regardless of context. They collapsed and didn’t notice.

Then Miessler, almost in passing:

This was a problem before AI. And now many are delegating even more of their thinking to a system that learns by crunching mediocrity from the internet. I can see things getting significantly worse.

If collapse is what happens when you stop seeking new inputs, then outsourcing your thinking to AI is collapse on fast-forward. You’re not building pattern recognition, you’re borrowing someone else’s average. The outputs look competent. They pass a first glance. But nothing in there surprises anyone, because the model optimizes for the most statistically probable next token.

Use AI to accelerate execution, not to replace the part where you actually have an idea.

There’s a version of product thinking that lives in frameworks and planning docs. And then there’s the version that shows up when someone looks at a screen and immediately knows something is off. That second version—call it product sense, call it taste or judgement—comes from doing the work, not reading about it.

Peter Yang, writing in his Behind the Craft newsletter, shares 25 product beliefs from a decade at Roblox, Reddit, Amazon, and Meta. The whole list is worth reading, but a few items stood out.

On actually using your own product:

I estimate that less than 10% of PMs actually dogfood their product on a weekly basis. Use your product like a first-time user and write a friction log of how annoying the experience is. Nobody is too senior to test their own shit.

Ten percent. If that number is even close to accurate, it’s damning. You can’t develop good product judgment if you’re not paying attention to the thing you ship. And this applies to designers just as much as PMs.

Yang again, on where that judgment actually shows up:

Default states, edge cases, and good copy — these details are what separates a great product from slop. It doesn’t matter how senior you are, you have to give a damn about the tiniest details to ship something that you can be proud of.

Knowing that default states matter, knowing which edge cases to care about, knowing when copy is doing too much or too little—you can’t learn that from a framework. That’s pattern recognition from years of seeing what good looks like and what falls apart.

And on what qualifies someone to do this work:

Nobody cares about your FAANG pedigree or AI product certificate. Hire high agency people who have built great side projects or demonstrated proof of work. The only credential that matters is what you’ve shipped and your ideas to improve the product.

Reps and shipped work, not reading and credentials. The people who’ve done the reps are the ones who can see the details everyone else misses.

Every designer I’ve managed who made the leap from good to great had one thing in common: they understood why things work, not just how to make them look right. They had product sense. And most of them didn’t learn it from a PM book.

Christina Wodtke, writing for Eleganthack, frames product sense as “compressed experience”:

Product sense works the same way. When a seasoned PM looks at a feature and immediately knows it’s wrong, they’re not being mystical. Their brain is processing hundreds of micro-signals: user flow friction, business model misalignment, technical complexity, competitive dynamics. Years of experience get compressed into a split-second gut reaction.

Swap “PM” for “designer” and this is exactly how design leadership works. The best design critiques I’ve been in aren’t about color choices or spacing—they’re about someone sensing that a flow is wrong before they can articulate why. That’s compressed experience doing its job.

Wodtke’s piece is aimed at product managers, but I think designers need it more. PMs at least have the business context baked into their role. Designers can spend years getting really good at craft without ever building the pattern recognition that tells them what to design, not just how.

This is the part that should be required reading for every designer:

Most people use apps passively — they open Spotify, play music, done. Product people need to use apps actively; not as a user but like a UX designer. They notice the three-tap onboarding flow. They see how the paywall appears after exactly the right amount of value demonstration. They understand why the search bar is positioned there, not there.

Wodtke literally says “like a UX designer.” That’s the standard she’s holding PMs to. So what’s our excuse?

She also nails why reading about product thinking isn’t enough:

Most people try to build product sense by reading about it. That’s like trying to learn tennis by studying physics. You need reps.

The designers on my team who do this—who actively pull apart flows, question trade-offs, study what real products actually ship—are the ones I can’t live without. They don’t need a spec to have an opinion. They already have the reps and consistently impress their PM counterparts.

Wodtke built a nine-week curriculum for her Stanford students that walks through onboarding, checkout, search, paywalls, error states, personalization, UGC, accessibility, and growth mechanics. Each week compares how three different products solve the same problem differently. It’s the kind of thing I wish I could assign to every junior designer on my team.

If you’re a designer and you’re only studying visual references on Dribbble, you’re doing half the work. Go do these exercises.

Earlier this week I linked to Gale Robins’ argument that AI makes execution cheap but doesn’t help you decide what to build. Christina Wodtke is making the same case from the research side.

Christina Wodtke opens with a designer who spent two weeks vibe-coding a gratitude journaling app. Beautiful interface, confetti animations, gentle notifications. Then she showed it to users. “I don’t really journal,” said the first one. “Gratitude journaling felt performative,” said the second. Two weeks building the wrong thing. Wodtke’s diagnosis:

That satisfaction is a trap. You’re accumulating artifacts that may have nothing to do with what anyone needs.

Wodtke draws a line between need-finding and validation that I think a lot of teams blur. Skipping the first and jumping to the second means you’re testing your guess, not understanding the problem:

Need-finding happens before you have a solution. You’re listening to people describe their lives, their frustrations, their workarounds. You’re hunting for problems that actually exist—problems people care enough about that they’re already trying to solve them with spreadsheets and sticky notes and whatever else they’ve cobbled together.

Wodtke’s version of fast looks different from what you’d expect:

The actual fast path is unsexy: sit down with five to ten people. Ask them about their lives. Shut up and listen. Use those three magic words—“tell me more”—every time something interesting surfaces. Don’t show them anything. Don’t pitch. Just listen.

“You’ll build less. It’ll be the right thing.” When building is cheap, the bottleneck moves upstream to judgment, knowing what to build. That judgment comes from listening, not prompting.

Last September I wrote about why we still need a HyperCard for the AI era—a tool that’s accessible but controllable, that lets everyday people build and share software without needing to be developers. John Allsopp sees the demand side of that equation already arriving.

Writing on LinkedIn, he starts with his 13-year-old daughter sending him a link to Aippy, a platform where people create, share, and remix apps like TikTok videos. It already has thousands of apps on it:

Millions of people who have never written a line of code are starting to build applications — not scripts or simple automations, but genuine applications with interfaces and logic and persistence.

The shift Allsopp describes isn’t just about who’s building. It’s about how software spreads:

This pattern — creation, casual sharing, organic spread — looks a lot more like how content moves on TikTok or Instagram than how apps move through the App Store. Software becomes something you make and share, and remix. Not something you publish and sell. It surfaces through social connections and social discovery, not through store listings and search rankings.

And the platforms we have aren’t built for it. Allsopp points out that the appliance model Apple introduced in 2007 made sense for an audience that was intimidated by technology. That audience grew up:

The platforms designed to protect users from complexity are now protecting users from their own creativity and that of their peers.

This is the world I was writing about in “Why We Still Need a HyperCard for the AI Era.” I argued for tools with direct manipulation, technical abstraction, and local distribution—ingredients HyperCard had that current AI coding tools still miss. Allsopp is describing the audience those tools need to serve. The gap between the two is where the opportunity sits.

Designers know this feeling. Your work lives inside whatever tool made it—Figma, Miro, Framer—and when that tool changes its pricing, gets acquired, or shuts down, your files go with it. We’ve now accepted this as normal.

Dan Abramov argues it shouldn’t be. In a long post about the AT Protocol (the technology behind Bluesky), he starts with how files used to work on personal computers:

The files paradigm captures a real-world intuition about tools: what we make with a tool does not belong to the tool. A manuscript doesn’t stay inside the typewriter, a photo doesn’t stay inside the camera, and a song doesn’t stay in the microphone.

He takes that intuition and applies it to social computing. What if your posts, likes, and follows were files you owned instead of data locked inside Instagram or Twitter? Abramov calls this a “social filesystem” and walks through how the AT Protocol makes it real, from records and collections to identity and links, all building toward one idea:

Our memories, our thoughts, our designs should outlive the software we used to create them. An app-agnostic storage (the filesystem) enforces this separation.

That word “designs” jumped out at me. Abramov is talking about social data, but the same logic applies to creative work. The inversion he describes, where apps react to your data rather than owning it, is the opposite of how most design tools work today:

In this paradigm, apps are reactive to files. Every app’s database mostly becomes derived data—an app-specific cached materialized view of everybody’s folders.

One of the reasons I write content here on this blog as opposed to writing in a social network or even Substack—though my newsletter is on Substack, humans aren’t perfect—is because I want the control and ownership Abramov brings up.

The whole post is worth reading. Abramov makes the AT Protocol’s architecture feel inevitable rather than complicated, and his closing line is the one I keep thinking about: “An everything app tries to do everything. An everything ecosystem lets everything get done.”

Earlier I linked to Hardik Pandya’s piece on invisible work—the coordination, the docs, the one-on-ones that hold projects together but never show up in a performance review. Designers have their own version of this problem, and it’s getting worse.

Kai Wong, writing in his Data and Design Substack, puts it plainly. A design manager he interviewed told him:

“It’s always been a really hard thing for design to attribute their hard work to revenue… You can make the most amazingly satisfying user experience. But if you’re not bringing in any revenue out of that, you’re not going to have a job for very much longer. The company’s not going to succeed.”

That’s always been true, but AI made it urgent. When a PM can generate something that “looks okay” using an AI tool, the question is obvious: what do we need designers for? Wong’s answer is the strategic work—research, translation between user needs and business goals. The trouble is that this work is the hardest to see.

Wong’s practical advice is to stop presenting design decisions in design terms. Instead of explaining that Option A follows the Gestalt principle of proximity, say this:

“Option A reduces checkout from 5 to 3 steps, making it much easier for users to complete their purchase instead of abandoning their cart.”

You’re not asking “which looks better?” You’re showing that you understand the business problem and the user problem, and can predict outcomes based on behavioral patterns.

I left a comment on this article when it came out, asking how these techniques translate at the leadership level. It’s one thing to help individual designers frame their work in business terms. It’s another to make an entire design org’s contribution legible to the rest of the company. Product management talks to customers and GTM teams. Engineering delivers features. Design is in the messy middle making sense of it all—and that sense-making is exactly the kind of invisible work that’s hardest to put on a slide.

For as long as I’ve been in startups, execution speed has been the thing teams optimized for. The assumption was always that if you could just build faster, you’d win. That’s your moat. AI has mostly delivered on that promise—teams can now ship in weeks—see Claude Cowork—what used to take months. And the result is that a lot of teams are building the wrong things faster than ever.

Gale Robins, writing for UX Collective, opens with a scene I’ve lived through from both sides of the table:

I watched a talented software team present three major features they’d shipped on time, hitting all velocity metrics. When I asked, “What problem do these features solve?” silence followed. They could describe what they’d built and how they’d built it. But they couldn’t articulate why any of it mattered to customers.

Robins argues that judgment has replaced execution as the real constraint on product teams. And AI is making this worse, not better:

What once took six months of misguided effort now takes six weeks, or with AI, six days.

Six days to build the wrong thing. The build cycle compressed but the thinking didn’t. Teams are still skipping the same discovery steps, still assuming they know what users want. They’re just doing it at a pace that makes the waste harder to catch.

Robins again:

AI doesn’t make bad judgment cheaper or less damaging — it just accelerates how quickly those judgment errors compound.

She illustrates this with a cascade example: a SaaS company interviews only enterprise clients despite SMBs making up 70% of revenue. That one bad call—who to talk to—ripples through problem framing, solution design, feature prioritization, and evidence interpretation, costing $315K over ten months. With AI-accelerated development, the same cascade plays out in five months at the same cost. You just fail twice as fast.

The article goes on to map 19 specific judgment points across the product discovery process. The framework itself is worth a read, but the underlying argument is the part I keep coming back to: as execution gets cheaper, the quality of your decisions is the only thing that scales.

I’ve watched this pattern play out more times than I can count: a team ships something genuinely better and users ignore it. They go back to the old thing. The spreadsheet. The manual process. And the team concludes that users “resist change,” which is the wrong diagnosis.

Tushar Deshmukh, writing for UX Magazine, frames it well:

Many teams assume users dislike change. In reality, users dislike cognitive disruption.

Deshmukh describes an enterprise team that built a predictive dashboard with dynamic tiles, smart filters, and smooth animations. It failed. Employees skipped it and went straight to the basic list view:

Not because the dashboard was bad. But because it disrupted 20 years of cognitive routine. The brain trusted the old list more than the new intelligence. When we merged both—familiar list first, followed by predictive insights—usage soared.

He tells a similar story about a logistics company that built an AI-powered route planner. Technically superior, visually polished, low adoption. Drivers had spent years building mental models around compass orientation, landmarks, and habitual map-reading patterns:

The AI’s “optimal route” felt psychologically incorrect. It was not wrong—it was unfamiliar. We added a simple “traditional route overlay,” showing older route patterns first. The AI suggestion was then followed as an enhancement. Adoption didn’t just improve—trust increased dramatically.

The fix was the same in both cases: layer the new on top of the familiar. Don’t replace the mental model—extend it. This is something I think about constantly as my team designs AI features into our product. The temptation is always to lead with the impressive new capability. But if users can’t find their footing in the interface, the capability doesn’t matter. Familiarity is the on-ramp.

Fitts’s Law is one of those design principles everyone learns in school and then quietly stops thinking about. Target size, target distance, movement time. It’s a mouse-and-cursor concept, and once you’ve internalized the basics—make buttons big, put them close—it fades into the background. But with AI and voice becoming primary interaction models, the principle matters again. The friction just moved.

Julian Scaff, writing for Bootcamp, traces Fitts’s Law from desktop GUIs through touch, spatial computing, voice, and neural interfaces. His argument is that the law didn’t become obsolete—it became metaphorical:

With voice interfaces, the notion of physical distance disappears altogether, yet the underlying cognitive pattern persists. When a user says, “Turn off the lights,” there’s no target to touch or point at, but there is still a form of interaction distance, the mental and temporal gap between intention and response. Misrecognition, latency, or unclear feedback increase this gap, introducing friction analogous to a small or distant button.

“Friction analogous to a small or distant button” is a useful way to think about what’s happening with AI interfaces right now. When a user stares at a blank text field and doesn’t know what to type, that’s distance. When an agent misinterprets a prompt and the user has to rephrase three times, that’s a tiny target. The physics changed but the math didn’t.

Scaff extends this into AI and neural interfaces, where the friction gets even harder to see:

Every layer of mediation, from neural decoding errors to AI misinterpretations, adds new forms of interaction friction. The task for designers will be to minimize these invisible distances, not spatial or manual, but semantic and affective, so that the path from intention to effect feels seamless, trustworthy, and humane.

He then describes what he calls a “semantic interface,” one that interprets intent rather than waiting for explicit commands:

A semantic interface understands the why behind a user’s action, interpreting intent through context, language, and behavior rather than waiting for explicit commands. It bridges gaps in understanding by aligning system logic with human mental models, anticipating needs, and communicating in ways that feel natural and legible.

This connects to the current conversation about AI UX. The teams building chatbot-first products are, in Fitts’s terms, forcing users to cross enormous distances with tiny targets. Every blank prompt field with no guidance is a violation of the same principle that tells you to make a button bigger. We’ve known this for seventy years. We’re just ignoring it because the interface looks new.

For years, the thing that made designers valuable was the thing that was hardest to fake: the ability to look at a spreadsheet of requirements and turn it into something visual that made sense. That skill got people hired and got them a seat at the table. And now a PM with access to Lovable or Figma Make can produce something that looks close enough to pass.

Kai Wong interviewed 22 design leaders and heard the same thing from multiple directions. One Global UX Director described the moment it clicked for his team:

“A designer on my team had a Miro session with a PM — wireframes, sketches, the usual. Then the PM went to Stitch by Google and created designs that looked pretty good. To an untrained eye, it looked finished. It obviously worried the team.”

It should worry teams. Not because the PM did anything wrong, but because designers aren’t always starting from a blank canvas anymore. They’re inheriting AI-generated drafts from people who don’t know what’s wrong with them.

Wong puts the commoditization bluntly:

Our superpower hasn’t been taken away: it’s more like anyone can buy something similar at the store.

The skill isn’t gone. It’s just no longer rare enough to carry your career on its own. What fills the gap, Wong argues, is the ability to articulate why—why this layout works, why that one doesn’t. One CEO he interviewed put it this way:

“I want the person who’s designing the thing from the start to understand the full business context.”

This resonates with me as a design leader. The designers on my teams who are hardest to replace are the ones who can walk into a room and explain why something needs to change, and tie that explanation to a user need or a business outcome. AI can’t do that yet. And the people generating those 90%-done drafts definitely can’t.

Every few years, the industry latches onto an interaction paradigm and tries to make it the answer to everything. A decade ago it was “make it an app.” Now it’s “just make it a chat.” The chatbot-as-default impulse is strong right now, and it’s leading teams to ship worse experiences than what they’re replacing.

Katya Korovkina, writing for UX Collective, calls this “chatbot-first thinking” and lays out a convincing case for why it’s a trap:

Many of the tasks we deal with in our personal life and at work require rich, multi-modal interaction patterns that conversational interfaces simply cannot support.

She walks through a series of validating questions product teams should ask before defaulting to a conversational UI, and the one that stuck with me is about discoverability. The food ordering example is a good one—if you don’t know what you want, listening to a menu read aloud is objectively worse than scanning one visually. But the real issue is who chat-first interfaces actually serve:

Prompt-based products work best for the users who already know how to ask the right question.

Jakob Nielsen has written about this as the “articulation barrier,” and Korovkina cites the stat that nearly half the population in wealthy countries struggles with complex texts. We’re building interfaces that require clear, precise written communication from people who don’t have that skill. And we’re acting like that’s fine because the technology is impressive.

Korovkina also makes a practical point that gets overlooked. She describes using a ChatGPT agent to get a YouTube transcript — a task that takes four clicks with a dedicated tool — and watching the agent spend minutes crawling the web, hitting paywalls, and retrying failures:

When an LLM agent spends five minutes crawling the web, calling tools, retrying failures, reasoning through intermediate steps, it is running on energy-intensive infrastructure, contributing to real data-center load, energy usage, and CO₂ emissions. For a task that could be solved with less energy by a specialised service, this is computational overkill.

The question she lands on—“was AI the right tool for this task at all?”—is the one product teams keep skipping. Sometimes a button, a dropdown, and a confirmation screen is the better answer.

Back in September, when Trump announced America by Design and appointed Joe Gebbia as Chief Design Officer, I wrote that it was “yet another illustration of this administration’s incompetence.” The executive order came months after DOGE gutted 18F and the US Digital Service, the agencies that had spent a decade building the expertise Gebbia now claims to be inventing.

Mark Wilson, writing for Fast Company, spoke to a dozen government designers about how Gebbia’s tenure has played out. When Wilson asked Gebbia about USDS and 18F—whether he thought these groups were overrated and needed to be rebuilt—here’s what he said:

“Without knowing too much about the groups you mentioned, I do know that the air cover and the urgency around design is in a place it’s [never] been before.”

He doesn’t know much about them. The agencies his administration destroyed. The hundreds of designers recruited from Google, Amazon, and Facebook who fixed healthcare.gov and built the COVID test ordering system. He doesn’t know much about them.

Mikey Dickerson, who founded USDS, on the opportunity Gebbia inherited:

“He’s inheriting the blank check kind of environment… [so] according to the laws of physics, he should be able to get a lot done. But if the things that he’s allowed to do, or the things that he wants to do, are harmful, then he’ll be able to do a lot of harm in a really short amount of time.”

And what has Gebbia done with that blank check? He’s built promotional websites for Trump initiatives: trumpaccounts.gov, trumpcard.gov, trumprx.com. Paula Scher of Pentagram looked at the work:

“The gold card’s embarrassing. The typeface is hackneyed.”

But Scher’s real critique goes beyond aesthetics.

“You can’t talk about people losing their Medicare and have a slick website,” says Paula Scher. “It just doesn’t go.”

That’s the contradiction at the center of America by Design. You can’t strip food stamps, gut healthcare subsidies, and purge the word “disability” from government sites, then turn around and promise to make government services “delightful.” The design isn’t the problem. The policy is.

Scher puts it plainly:

“[Trump] wants to make it look like a business. It’s not a business. The government is a place that creates laws and programs for society—it’s not selling shit.”

Wilson’s piece is long and worth reading in full. There’s more on what USDS and 18F actually accomplished, and on the designers who watched their work get demolished by people who didn’t understand it.

Daniel Kennett dug out his old Mac Pro to revisit Aperture, the photo app Apple discontinued in 2015:

It’s hard to overstate quite how revolutionary and smooth this flow is until you had it for multiple years before having it taken away. Nothing on the market—even over a decade later—is this good at meeting you where you are and not interrupting your flow.

Kennett’s observation: Aperture came to you. Most software makes you go to it. You could edit a photo right on the map view, or while laying out a book page. No separate editing mode. Press H for the adjustments HUD, make your changes, done.

The cruel twist was Apple suggesting Photos as a replacement. Ten years later, photographers are still grumbling about it in comment sections.

I spent all of last week linking to articles that say designers need to be more strategic. I still stand by that. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t understand the technical side of things.

Benhur Senabathi, writing for UX Collective, shipped 3 apps and 15+ working prototypes in 2025 using Claude Code and Cursor. His takeaway:

I didn’t learn to code this year. I learned to orchestrate. The difference matters. Coding is about syntax. Orchestration is about intent, systems, and knowing what ‘done’ looks like. Designers have been doing that for years. The tools finally caught up.

The skills that make someone good at design—defining outcomes, anticipating edge cases, communicating intent to people who don’t share your context—are exactly what AI-assisted building requires.

Senabathi again:

Prompting well isn’t about knowing to code. It’s about articulating the ‘what’ and ‘why’ clearly enough that the AI can handle the ‘how.’

This echoes how Boris Cherny uses Claude Code. Cherny runs 10-15 parallel sessions, treating AI as capacity to orchestrate rather than a tool to use. Same insight, different vantage point: Cherny from engineering, Senabathi from design.

One of my favorite parts of shipping a product is finding out how people actually use it. Not how we intended them to use it—how they bend it, repurpose it, surprise us with it. That’s when you learn what you really built.

Karo Zieminski, writing for Product with Attitude, captures a great example of this in her breakdown of Anthropic’s Cowork launch. She quotes Anthropic engineer Boris Cherny:

Since we launched Claude Code, we saw people using it for all sorts of non-coding work: conducting vacation research, creating slide presentations, organizing emails, cancelling subscriptions, retrieving wedding photos from hard drives, tracking plant growth, and controlling ovens.

Controlling ovens. I love it. Users took a coding tool and turned it into a general-purpose assistant because that’s what they needed it to be.

Simon Willison had already spotted this:

Claude Code is a general agent disguised as a developer tool. What it really needs is a UI that doesn’t involve the terminal and a name that doesn’t scare away non-developers.

That’s exactly what Anthropic shipped in Cowork. Same engine, new packaging, name that doesn’t say “developers only.”

This is the beauty of what we do. Once you create something, it’s really up to users to show you how it should be used. Your job is to pay attention—and have the humility to build what the behavior is asking for, not what your roadmap says.

Nice mini-site from the Figma showcasing the “iconic interactions” of the last 20 years. It explores how software has become inseparable from how we think and connect—and how AI is accelerating that shift toward adaptive, conversational interfaces. Made with Figma Make, of course.

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

Yan Liu offers a working definition:

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

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

Liu cites Rick Rubin’s formula:

Great taste = Sensitivity × Standards

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

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

The closing line is the one that sticks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His definition of design in a product context:

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

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