For the past year, CPG behemoth Unilever has been “working with marketing services group Brandtech to build up its Beauty AI Studio: a bespoke, in-house system inside its beauty and wellbeing business. Now in place across 18 different markets (the U.S. and U.K. among them), the studio is being used to make assets for paid social, programmatic display inventory and e-commerce usage across brands including Dove Intensive Repair, TRESemme Lamellar Shine and Vaseline Gluta Hya.”

Sam Bradley, writing in Digiday:

The system relies on Pencil Pro, a generative AI application developed by Brandtech Group. The tool draws on several large language models (LLMs), as well as API access to Meta and TikTok for effectiveness measurement. It’s already used by hearing-care brand Amplifon to rapidly produce text and image assets for digital ad channels.

In Unilever’s process, marketers use prompts and their own insights about target audiences to generate images and video based on 3D renders of each product, a practice sometimes referred to as “digital twinning.” Each brand in a given market is assigned a “BrandDNAi” — an AI tool that can retrieve information about brand guidelines and relevant regulations and that provides further limitations to the generative process.

So far, they haven’t used this system to generate AI humans. Yet.

In many ways, this excellent article by Kaustubh Saini for Final Round AI’s blog is a cousin to my essay on the design talent crisis. But it’s about what happens when people “become” developers and only know vibe coding.

The appeal is obvious, especially for newcomers facing a brutal job market. Why spend years learning complex programming languages when you can just describe what you want in plain English? The promise sounds amazing: no technical knowledge required, just explain your vision and watch the AI build it.

In other words, these folks don’t understand the code and, well, bad things can happen.

The most documented failure involves an indie developer who built a SaaS product entirely through vibe coding. Initially celebrating on social media that his “saas was built with Cursor, zero hand written code,” the story quickly turned dark.

Within weeks, disaster struck. The developer reported that “random things are happening, maxed out usage on api keys, people bypassing the subscription, creating random shit on db.” Being non-technical, he couldn’t debug the security breaches or understand what was going wrong. The application was eventually shut down permanently after he admitted “Cursor keeps breaking other parts of the code.”

This failure illustrates the core problem with vibe coding: it produces developers who can generate code but can’t understand, debug, or maintain it. When AI-generated code breaks, these developers are helpless.

I don’t foresee something this disastrous with design. I mean, a newbie designer wielding an AI-enabled Canva or Figma can’t tank a business alone because the client will have eyes on it and won’t let through something that doesn’t work. It could be a design atrocity, but it’ll likely be fine.

This *can *happen to a designer using vibe coding tools, however. Full disclosure: I’m one of them. This site is partially vibe-coded. My Severance fan project is entirely vibe-coded.

But back to the idea of a talent crisis. In the developer world, it’s already happening:

The fundamental problem is that vibe coding creates what experts call “pseudo-developers.” These are people who can generate code but can’t understand, debug, or maintain it. When AI-generated code breaks, these developers are helpless.

In other words, they don’t have the skills necessary to be developers because they can’t do the basics. They can’t debug, don’t understand architecture, have no code review skills, and basically have no fundamental knowledge of what it means to be a programmer. “They miss the foundation that allows developers to adapt to new technologies, understand trade-offs, and make architectural decisions.”

Again, assuming our junior designers have the requisite fundamental design skills, not having spent time developing their craft and strategic skills through experience will be detrimental to them and any org that hires them.

Sonos announced yesterday that interim CEO Tom Conrad was made permanent. From their press release:

Sonos has achieved notable progress under Mr. Conrad’s leadership as Interim CEO. This includes setting a new standard for the quality of Sonos’ software and product experience, clearing the path for a robust new product pipeline, and launching innovative new software enhancements to flagship products Sonos Ace and Arc Ultra.

Conrad surely navigated this landmine well after the disastrous app redesign that wiped almost $500 million from the company’s market value and cost CEO Patrick Spence his job. My sincere hope is that Conrad continues to rebuild Sonos’s reputation by continuing to improve their products.

From UX Magazine:

Copilots helped enterprises dip their toes into AI. But orchestration platforms and tools are where the real transformation begins — systems that can understand intent, break it down, distribute it, and deliver results with minimal hand-holding.

Think of orchestration as how “meta-agents” are conducting other agents.

The first iteration of AI in SaaS was copilots. They were like helpful interns eagerly awaiting your next command. Orchestration platforms are more like project managers. They break down big goals into smaller tasks, assign them to the right AI agents, and keep everything coordinated. This shift is changing how companies design software and user experiences, making things more seamless and less reliant on constant human input.

For designers and product teams, it means thinking about workflows that cross multiple tools, making sure users can trust and control what the AI is doing, and starting small with automation before scaling up.

In case you missed it, there’s been a major shift in the AI tool landscape.

On Friday, OpenAI’s $3 billion offer to acquire AI coding tool Windsurf expired. Windsurf is the Pepsi to Cursor’s Coke. They’re both IDEs, the programming desktop application that software developers use to code. Think of them as supercharged text editors but with AI built in.

On Friday evening, Google announced that it had hired Windsurf’s CEO Varun Mohan, co-founder Douglas Chen, and several key researchers for $2.4 billion.

On Monday, Cognition, the company behind Devin, the self-described “AI engineer” announced that it had acquired Windsurf for an undisclosed sum, but noting that its remaining 250 employees will “participate financially in this deal.”

Why does this matter to designers?

The AI tools market is changing very rapidly. With AI helping to write these applications, their numbers and features are always increasing—or in this case, maybe consolidating. Choose wisely before investing too deeply into one particular tool. The one piece of advice I would give here is to avoid lock-in. Don’t get tied to a vendor. Ensure that your tool of choice can export your work—the code.

Jason Lemkin has more on the business side of things and how it affects VC-backed startups.

This post has been swimming in my head since I read it. Elena Verna, who joined Lovable just over a month ago to lead marketing and growth, writing in her newsletter, observes that everyone at the company is an AI-native employee. “An AI-native employee isn’t someone who ‘uses AI.’ It’s someone who defaults to AI,” she says.

On how they ship product:

Here, when someone wants to build something (anything) - from internal tools, to marketing pages, to writing production code - they turn to AI and… build it. That’s it.

No headcount asks. No project briefs. No handoffs. Just action.

At Lovable, we’re mostly building with… Lovable. Our Shipped site is built on Lovable. I’m wrapping hackathon sponsorship intake form in Lovable as we speak. Internal tools like credit giveaways and influencer management? Also Lovable (soon to be shared in our community projects so ya’ll can remix them too). On top of that, engineering is using AI extensively to ship code fast (we don’t even really have Product Managers, so our engineers act as them).

I’ve been hearing about more and more companies operating this way. Crazy time to be alive.

More on this topic in a future long-form post.

Paul Worthington writing about the recent Cannes Festival of Creativity:

…nostalgia is rapidly becoming a major idea d’jour among marketers targeting that oh-so-desirable “Gen Z” demographic.

As a result, it should come as no surprise that if you were to walk around Cannes over the past month or so, you’d be forgiven for thinking brands no longer had any interest in the future: Lisa Frank notebooks. Tamagotchi cameos. Taglines from 1999. Brand after brand strapping itself to the past, seeking refuge in comfort. Instacart. Mattel. Burger King. Skoda. All treating relevance as if it were a rerun.

But along with nostalgia, another theme was present at Cannes—differentiation:

Cannes was also a parade of brands betting on something riskier. Something sharper. Something new. Liquid Death. Stripe. Tesla. Anduril. Companies building out from belief systems focused resolutely on what makes them unique. Making things you couldn’t have predicted because they weren’t remixes of the past—they were statements of the future.

Worthington argues that these two themes are diametrically opposed. Nostalgia brands are “fundamentally risk-averse” and feel safe. While differentiated brands are “risk-embracing,” betting that consumers are desperate for “something weird, sharp, and built from scratch.”

Here we go. Figma has just dropped their S-1, or their registration for an initial public offering (IPO).

Rollup of stats from Figma’s S-1.

While a lot of the risk factors are boilerplate—legalese to cover their bases—the one about AI is particularly interesting, “Competitive developments in AI and our inability to effectively respond to such developments could adversely affect our business, operating results, and financial condition.”

Developments in AI are already impacting the software industry significantly, and we expect this impact to be even greater in the future. AI has become more prevalent in the markets in which we operate and may result in significant changes in the demand for our platform, including, but not limited to, reducing the difficulty and cost for competitors to build and launch competitive products, altering how consumers and businesses interact with websites and apps and consume content in ways that may result in a reduction in the overall value of interface design, or by otherwise making aspects of our platform obsolete or decreasing the number of designers, developers, and other collaborators that utilize our platform. Any of these changes could, in turn, lead to a loss of revenue and adversely impact our business, operating results, and financial condition.

There’s a lot of uncertainty they’re highlighting:

• Could competitors use AI to build competing products?
• Could AI reduce the need for websites and apps which decreases the need for interfaces?
• Could companies reduce workforces, thus reducing the number of seats they buy?

These are all questions the greater tech industry is asking.

In a dual profile, Ben Blumenrose spotlights Phil Vander Broek—whose startup Dopt was acquired last year by Airtable—and Filip Skrzesinski—who is currently working on Subframe—in the Designer Founders newsletter.

One of the lessons Vander Broek learned was to not interview customers just to validate an idea. Interview them to get the idea first. In other words, discover the pain points:

They ran 60+ interviews in three waves. The first 20 conversations with product and growth leaders surfaced a shared pain point: driving user adoption was painfully hard, and existing tools felt bolted on. The next 20 calls helped shape a potential solution through mockups and prototypes—one engineer was so interested he volunteered for weekly co-design sessions. A final batch of 20 calls confirmed their ideal customer was engineers, not PMs.

As for Skrzesinski, he’s learning that being a startup founder isn’t about building the product—it’s about building a business:

But here’s Filip’s counterintuitive advice: “Don’t start a company because you love designing products. Do it in spite of that.”

“You won’t be designing in the traditional sense—you’ll be designing the company’s DNA,” he explains. “It’s the invisible work: how you organize, how you think, how you make decisions. How it feels to work there, to use what you’re making, to believe in it.”

Brian Balfour, writing for the Reforge blog:

Speed isn’t just about shipping faster, it’s about accelerating your entire learning metabolism. The critical metric isn’t feature velocity but rather your speed through the complete Insight → Act → Learn loop. This distinction separates products that compound advantages from those that compound technical debt.

The point being that now with AI, product teams are shipping faster. And those who aren’t might get lapped (to use an F1 phrase).

Bell Labs was a famed research lab run by AT&T (aka “Ma Bell” before it was broken up). You can draw a straight line from Bell Labs to Xerox PARC where essential computing technologies like the graphical user interface, the mouse, Ethernet, and more were invented.

Aeroform, writing for 1517 Fund:

The reason why we don’t have Bell Labs is because we’re unwilling to do what it takes to create Bell Labs — giving smart people radical freedom and autonomy.

The freedom to waste time. The freedom to waste resources. And the autonomy to decide how.

Nate Jones performed a yeoman’s job of summarizing Mary Meeker’s 340-slide deck on AI trends, the “2025 Technology as Innovation (TAI) Report.” For those of you who don’t know, Mary Meeker is a famed technology analyst and investor known for her insightful reports on tech industry trends. For the longest time, as an analyst at Kleiner Perkins, she published the Internet Trends report. And she was always prescient.

Half of Jones’ post is the summary, while the other half is how the report applies to product teams. The whole thing is worth 27 minutes of your time, especially if you work in software.

Josh Miller, writing in The Browser Company’s substack:

After a couple of years of building and shipping Arc, we started running into something we called the “novelty tax” problem. A lot of people loved Arc — if you’re here you might just be one of them — and we’d benefitted from consistent, organic growth since basically Day One. But for most people, Arc was simply too different, with too many new things to learn, for too little reward.

“Novelty tax” is another way of saying using non-standard patterns that users just didn’t get. I love Arc. It’s my daily driver. But, Miller is right that it does have a steep learning curve. So there is a natural ceiling to their market.

Miller’s conclusion is where things get really interesting:

Let me be even more clear: traditional browsers, as we know them, will die. Much in the same way that search engines and IDEs are being reimagined [by AI-first products like Perplexity and Cursor]. That doesn’t mean we’ll stop searching or coding. It just means the environments we do it in will look very different, in a way that makes traditional browsers, search engines, and IDEs feel like candles — however thoughtfully crafted. We’re getting out of the candle business. You should too.

“You should too.”

And finally, to bring it back to the novelty tax:

**New interfaces start from familiar ones. **In this new world, two opposing forces are simultaneously true. How we all use computers is changing much faster (due to AI) than most people acknowledge. Yet at the same time, we’re much farther from completely abandoning our old ways than AI insiders give credit for. Cursor proved this thesis in the coding space: the breakthrough AI app of the past year was an (old) IDE — designed to be AI-native. OpenAI confirmed this theory when they bought Windsurf (another AI IDE), despite having Codex working quietly in the background. We believe AI browsers are next.

Sad to see Arc’s slow death, but excited to try Dia soon.

Patrick Morgan writing for UX Collective:

The tactical tasks that juniors traditionally cut their teeth on are increasingly being delegated to AI tools. Tasks that once required a human junior designer with specialized training can now be handled by generative AI tools in a fraction of the time and cost to the organization.

This fundamentally changes the entry pathway. When the low-complexity work that helped juniors develop their skills is automated away, we lose the natural onramp that allowed designers to gradually progress from tactical execution to strategic direction.

Remote work has further complicated things by removing informal learning opportunities that happen naturally in an in-person work environment, like shadowing senior designers, being in the room for strategy discussions, or casual mentorship chats.

I’ve been worried about this a lot. I do wonder how the next class of junior designers—and all professionals, for that matter—will learn. (I cited Aneesh Raman, chief economic opportunity officer at LinkedIn, in my previous essay.)

Morgan does have some suggestions:

Instead of waiting for the overall market to become junior-friendly again (which I don’t see happening), focus your search on environments more structurally accepting of new talent:

1. Very early-stage startups: Pre-seed or seed companies often have tight budgets and simply need someone enthusiastic who can execute designs. It will be trial-by-fire, but you’ll gain rapid hands-on experience.

2. Stable, established businesses outside of ‘big tech’: Businesses with predictable revenue streams often provide structured environments for junior designers (my early experience at American Express is a prime example). It might not be as glamorous as a ‘big tech’ job, but as a result they’re less competitive while still offering critical experience to get started.

3. Design agencies: Since their business model focuses on selling design services, agencies naturally employ more designers and can support a mix of experience levels. The rapid exposure to multiple projects makes them solid launchpads even if your long-term goal is to work in-house in tech.

OpenAI is acquiring a hardware company called “io” that Jony Ive cofounded just a year ago:

Two years ago, Jony Ive and the creative collective LoveFrom, quietly began collaborating with Sam Altman and the team at OpenAI.

…

It became clear that our ambitions to develop, engineer and manufacture a new family of products demanded an entirely new company. And so, one year ago, Jony founded io with Scott Cannon, Evans Hankey and Tang Tan.

We gathered together the best hardware and software engineers, the best technologists, physicists, scientists, researchers and experts in product development and manufacturing. Many of us have worked closely for decades.

The io team, focused on developing products that inspire, empower and enable, will now merge with OpenAI to work more intimately with the research, engineering and product teams in San Francisco.

It has been an open rumor that Sam Altman and Ive has been working together on some hardware. I had assumed they formalized their partnership already, but I guess not.

There are some bold statements that Ive and Altman make in the launch video, teasing a revolutionary new device that will enable quicker, better access to ChatGPT. Something that is a lot less friction than how Altman explains in the video:

If I wanted to ask ChatGPT something right now about something we had talked about earlier, think about what would happen. I would like reached down. I would get on my laptop, I’d open it up, I’d launch a web browser, I’d start typing, and I’d have to, like, explain that thing. And I would hit enter, and I would wait, and I would get a response. And that is at the limit of what the current tool of a laptop can do. But I think this technology deserves something much better.

There are a couple of other nuggets about what this new device might be from the statements Ive and Altman made to Bloomberg:

…Ive and Altman don’t see the iPhone disappearing anytime soon. “In the same way that the smartphone didn’t make the laptop go away, I don’t think our first thing is going to make the smartphone go away,” Altman said. “It is a totally new kind of thing.”

…

“We are obviously still in the terminal phase of AI interactions,” said Altman, 40. “We have not yet figured out what the equivalent of the graphical user interface is going to be, but we will.”

While we don’t know what the form factor will be, I’m sure it won’t be a wearable pin—ahem, RIP Humane. Just to put it out there—I predict it will be a voice assistant in an earbud, very much like the AI in the 2013 movie “Her.” Altman has long been obsessed with the movie, going as far as trying to get Scarlett Johansson to be one of the voices for ChatGPT.

EDIT 5/22/2025, 8:58am PT: Added prediction about the form factor.

Sam Bradley, writing for Digiday:

One year in from the launch of Google’s AI Overviews, adoption of AI-assisted search tools has led to the rise of so-called “zero-click search,” meaning that users terminate their search journeys without clicking a link to a website.

“People don’t search anymore. They’re prompting, they’re gesturing,” said Craig Elimeliah, chief creative officer at Code and Theory.

It’s a deceptively radical change to an area of the web that evolved from the old business of print directories and classified sections — one that may redefine how both web users and marketing practitioners think about search itself.

And I wrote about answer engines, earlier this year in January:

…the fundamental symbiotic economic relationship between search engines and original content websites is changing. Instead of sending traffic to websites, search engines, and AI answer engines are scraping the content directly and providing them within their platforms.

I love this wonderfully written piece by Julie Zhou exploring the Ghiblification of everything. On how we feel about a month later:

The second watching never commands the same awe as the first. The 20th bite doesn’t dance on the tongue as exquisitely. And the 200th anime portrait certainly no longer impresses the way it once did.

The sad truth is that oversaturation strangles quality. Nothing too easy can truly be tasteful.

She goes on to make a point that Studio Ghibli’s quality is beyond style—it’s of narrative and imagination.

AI-generated images in the “Ghibli style” may borrow its surface features but they don’t capture the soul of what makes Studio Ghibli exceptional in quality. They lack the narrative depth, the handcrafted devotion, and the cultural resonance.

Like a celebrity impersonator, the ChatGPT images borrow from the cache of the original. But sadly, hollowly, it’s not the same. What made the original shimmer is lost in translation.

And rather than going down the AI-is-enshitification conversation, Zhou pivots a little, focusing on the technological quality and the benefits it brings.

…ChatGPT could offer a flavor of magic that Studio Ghibli could never achieve, the magic of personalization.

…

The quality of Ghibli-fication is the quality of the new image model itself, one that could produce so convincing an on-the-fly facsimile of a photograph in a particular style that it created a “moment” in public consciousness. ChatGPT 4o beat out a number of other image foundational models for this prize.

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.

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.”

I found this post from Tom Blomfield to be pretty profound. We’ve seen interest in universal basic income from Sam Altman and other leaders in AI, as they’ve anticipated the decimation of white collar jobs in coming years. Blomfield crushes the resistance from some corners of the software developer community in stark terms.

These tools [like Windsurf, Cursor and Claude Code] are now very good. You can drop a medium-sized codebase into Gemini 2.5’s 1 million-token context window and it will identify and fix complex bugs. The architectural patterns that these coding tools implement (when prompted appropriately) will easily scale websites to millions of users. I tried to expose sensitive API keys in front-end code just to see what the tools would do, and they objected very vigorously.

They are not perfect yet. But there is a clear line of sight to them getting very good in the immediate future. Even if the underlying models stopped improving altogether, simply improving their tool use will massively increase the effectiveness and utility of these coding agents. They need better integration with test suites, browser use for QA, and server log tailing for debugging. Pretty soon, I expect to see tools that allow the LLMs to to step through the code and inspect variables at runtime, which should make debugging trivial.

At the same time, the underlying models are not going to stop improving. they will continue to get better, and these tools are just going to become more and more effective. My bet is that the AI coding agents quickly beat top 0.1% of human performance, at which point it wipes out the need for the vast majority software engineers.

He quotes the Y Combinator stat I cited in a previous post:

About a quarter of the recent YC batch wrote 95%+ of their code using AI. The companies in the most recent batch are the fastest-growing ever in the history of Y Combinator. This is not something we say every year. It is a real change in the last 24 months. Something is happening.

Companies like Cursor, Windsurf, and Lovable are getting to $100M+ revenue with astonishingly small teams. Similar things are starting to happen in law with Harvey and Legora. It is possible for teams of five engineers using cutting-edge tools to build products that previously took 50 engineers. And the communication overhead in these teams is dramatically lower, so they can stay nimble and fast-moving for much longer.

And for me, this is where the rubber meets the road:

The costs of running all kinds of businesses will come dramatically down as the expenditure on services like software engineers, lawyers, accountants, and auditors drops through the floor. Businesses with real moats (network effect, brand, data, regulation) will become dramatically more profitable. Businesses without moats will be cloned mercilessly by AI and a huge consumer surplus will be created.

Moats are now more important than ever. Non-tech companies—those that rely on tech companies to make software for them, specifically B2B vertical SaaS—are starting to hire developers. How soon will they discover Cursor if they haven’t already? These next few years will be incredibly interesting.

Jay Hoffman, from his excellent The History of the Web site:

1995 is a fascinating year. It’s one of the most turbulent in modern history. 1995 was the web’s single most important inflection point. A fact that becomes most apparent by simply looking at the numbers. At the end of 1994, there were around 2,500 web servers. 12 months later, there were almost 75,000. By the end of 1995, over 700 new servers were being added to the web every single day.

That was surely a crazy time…

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.