Taras Bakusevych closes his walkthrough of ten dying UI patterns on the heuristic that matters:

Execution UI: Interfaces that help humans perform deterministic work — entering data, configuring rules, following process steps, executing repetitive operations. 🟠 Shrinking. As AI automates execution, these surfaces lose their reason to exist.

Judgment UI: Interfaces that help humans evaluate, guide, and correct work done by machines — reviewing outputs, verifying changes, understanding reasoning, intervening at exceptions. 🟢 Growing. As AI takes on more autonomous work, humans need better surfaces to supervise it.

The supervision problem is what Jakob Nielsen called evaluability—the new central UX metric—and Bakusevych is doing the screen-by-screen translation. Every pattern in his list gets re-examined under one question: is this surface helping the human do the work, or helping the human check the work?

The HubSpot quote flow makes the friction concrete:

Creating a single sales quote in HubSpot requires navigating seven sequential screens. The rep manually selects the contact, adds company details, configures line items, chooses signature options, sets payment terms, picks a template, and previews the result — before a single quote reaches the buyer. Each step assumes the system doesn’t know information it already has in the CRM.

Bakusevych’s replacement gives the rep a different role: review what Shopify Sidekick assembled, correct what’s wrong, ship.

That’s the test he leaves you with. Open one screen in your product and ask which job it’s doing. If it’s interrogating the user for context the system could have inferred, it’s on the shrinking side.

Nathan Beck, a product designer in Amsterdam, opens his essay with the title “The death of design” and an immediate retraction: “LOL only jk design still alive.” Then he spends a few thousand words on why, walking through what AI tools actually do to a working designer’s day and what they conspicuously do not do.

The pivot quote is buried two-thirds in:

If you call yourself a designer and—be honest with yourself—the bulk of your role has been the production of flat pictures of user interfaces, then I’m sorry to break it to you, but you are not designing. You are styling.

That line is the whole post compressed. Beck is not arguing that AI threatens designers. He is arguing that AI threatens styling, and that a lot of people who call themselves designers have been styling for a decade and are now discovering that the part of the job AI is good at was the part they were doing.

What’s left over, in Beck’s telling, is the reflective work: the thing that happens during design, not in the final file. He quotes Kaari Saarinen on output isn’t design:

In the same way that one writes in order to understand what one is writing, one designs in order to understand what one is designing. As Kaari Saarinen explains, “Working visually keeps me close to the problem and is slow enough [sic] gives me time to think while I work. Moving things around, testing relationships, and refining structure is not separate from the thinking. It is part of how clarity emerges.”

This is the part the “designers are cooked” discourse misses. The understanding accumulated while making the Figma file was the asset all along. The file was the receipt.

Beck has a second argument running underneath the first: AI output, on its own, is aesthetically average. He quotes Nick Foster’s Dezeen piece on what software feels like after a decade of optimization:

The apps I use to hire plumbers look and feel remarkably similar to those I use to watch skiers do backflips. Every brand feels the same, every function feels the same, every interaction feels optimised, streamlined and joyless. By any measure, these pieces of software are miracles of engineering and triumphs of logic, yet they feel profoundly underwhelming to live with.

A designer who only ever produced flat pictures of those interfaces has been replaceable by a model for a while now. The judgment about which of those generic outputs should ship and which should be thrown out and rebuilt is the part no model has managed yet.

Beck closes:

However, I am cautiously optimistic that as we weather this historical conjuncture, and machine intelligence loses its sparkly aura, and weekend vibe coders increasingly learn how substantial the gap is between a prototype and a product, the role of design, however it is redefined, will be just as essential as it ever was.

That unsexy gap is the whole game. Greg Kozakiewicz updated the old construction line: we used to confuse the drawing with the building; now we confuse the prototype with the product. The demo works on a good laptop with someone who knows what the app is supposed to do. The product has to work for the user who doesn’t. Closing that gap is the orchestration job—defining the thresholds and deciding what the system should refuse to do—and when the weekend demos lose their shine.

The terminal’s return as a serious surface for new tools (Claude Code, Codex, Omarchy) has mostly been read as a developer aesthetic story. Alcides Fonseca reads it as the receipt for thirty years of GUI toolkit churn. He walks the platforms one by one (Windows, Linux, macOS), then through Electron, then through the failed restarts (Google’s Flutter UI, Zed’s GPUI), and ends on TUIs as the place developers go when none of the layers above hold up.

Fonseca on macOS:

Apple used to be a one-book religion. Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines used to be cited by every User Interface course over the world. Xerox PARC and Apple were the two institutions that studied what it means to have a good human interface. Fast forward a few decades, and Apple is doing the best worst it can to break all the guidelines and consistency it was known for.

This isn’t a nostalgia complaint. Fonseca lists the live breaks (Fitts’ law getting ignored, the Tahoe window-resizing saga that didn’t stay fixed, the icons cluttering Apple menus) and treats them as the same class of failure as Microsoft’s WinForms-WPF-Silverlight-WinUI-MAUI parade. The mechanism differs but the outcome is the same: the platform stops being a place a designer can rely on.

Fonseca on Electron:

Looking at my dock, I have 8 native apps (text mate and macOS system utilities) and 6 electron apps (Slack, Discord, Mattermost, VScode, Cursor, Plexampp). And that’s from someone who really wishes he could avoid having any electron app at all. […] These are actions that should be the same across every macOS application, and even if there are shortcuts, they are not announced in the menus.

The dock count is the right way to measure it. RAM is the visible cost of Electron; the invisible cost is that every Electron app becomes its own little keyboard regime, with shortcuts that often don’t match the rest of the system and aren’t announced in menus when they do exist. Fonseca’s Cursor example (can you keyboard from the agent panel to the agent list and archive an item) is the kind of question any pre-Electron Mac app would have answered yes to. Most Electron apps answer maybe, with a shortcut their vendor invented.

His prescription that follows (make HCI mandatory in CS curricula, fail student projects with bad UIs, push OS vendors to invest in toolkits developers want to use) is correct in shape and probably wrong about leverage. Students aren’t the bottleneck. Apple and Microsoft have already read Norman. TUIs are back because the platforms quit, and the curriculum can’t fix that.

Fonseca’s diagnosis is right. The prescription is narrower. The TUI escape hatch works for developers because their work is text. Designers don’t get the same exit when the canvas is the medium itself.

Bonus: Speaking of TUIs, TUIStudio is a macOS app for designing terminal UIs, just like Figma!

Alex Dapunt, VP Design and Brand at Moonfare, opens with a research session in which a senior client laid out exactly what to build next, with the roadmap, rationale, and feature list ready inside a minute. The client was wrong, Dapunt writes, but not because he was stupid. He was wrong because he had been asked the wrong question and his instinct was to answer it anyway.

The smarter your users, the more convincing their wrong answers. A user says they want ice cream. While they say they want ice cream, what they need is to cool down. Their body wants sugar. It’s hot. There’s a memory somewhere in there, a summer ritual, something cold in their hand. The want closes off options. The need opens them. Take “I want ice cream” at face value and you sell them ice cream. Understand the need and you can sell them a popsicle, a cold drink, air conditioning, a swim in the sea.

The want-versus-need split is older than this piece. Dapunt credits Jared Spool for it. The part Dapunt adds is about who tends to give you the worst version of a want. He argues the failure intensifies in premium and B2B contexts, where the people you most want to talk to are the people most trained to produce confident answers under pressure.

The Moonfare client wasn’t an outlier. I think a lot about why this happens. Part of the answer, I think, is that the people we were interviewing had been trained, explicitly, to produce answers. At Bain, where I spent time earlier in my career, the core discipline is what’s called the answer-first approach, or the A1. You lead with the answer. Then you work backwards. […] It’s a disastrous way to sit in a research session as a user. An executive trained that way walks in and the instinct takes over. They feel the absence of an answer as pressure. They want to be useful. They want to look smart. They give you the A1, and it’s precise and articulate because producing precise articulate answers is what they are paid to do.

Dapunt’s observation about ambiguity is worth carrying into the next interview transcript you read. When a regular user says “I dunno, maybe?” he argues, the fuzziness is signal that the question is wrong. The executive doesn’t give you that signal, so you have to know to discount the clarity.

Dapunt then turns the same lens on metrics. His version of the metrics-as-avoidance failure mode is more specific: the wrong moment, not just the wrong number.

At Moonfare we tracked logins. More logins looks good on a dashboard. Looks like engagement. But private equity is a 5-to-10 year product. For most of that time nothing is supposed to happen. […] The right moment isn’t a platform question. It’s a life question. When does this person have cashflow? When’s bonus season? What does their portfolio look like right now, and is there a product we offer that fits the gap? The real need isn’t log in more. It’s be present when a decision is being made. Five well-timed touchpoints in a year beat fifty random ones.

The piece closes on the part of research practice that gets least attention.

Research is intake. You take it in. You synthesise. Then someone has to make the call and own it. […] In practice I’ve watched it produce three biases averaged into a consensus nobody owns. Someone has to own the interpretation. It can be a researcher, a designer, a founder, a PM. But it’s one person’s job, and it comes with the accountability for the call that follows. The alternative is research-as-stalling.

Dapunt is careful here. He likes continuous discovery, he likes the product trio in theory, and he is not making a contrarian case against any of it. His point is narrower. A team can run all the right research rituals and still end up with a process whose actual function is to ensure no single person has to take responsibility for being wrong.

Nick Babich on agents in UX Planet. A useful pair to his earlier writeup on Claude skills, since the two words get used interchangeably and they are not the same thing. Babich opens with the plain-language version:

Think of an AI agent as a program you run when you need to solve a particular problem in design. For example, you can create an AI agent that helps you with usability testing, code review, UI/UX audit, etc.

A program you run is the right mental model. A skill, the way Babich described it in his earlier piece, is a recipe: a markdown file Claude reaches for when a task matches. An agent is what runs once Claude has the recipe in hand. It carries state across steps, picks tools, reports back.

Babich’s four attributes of a well-designed agent get at that distinction without saying it out loud:

1. Good clarity (intent alignment). A strong agent understands what success looks like, not just the task. This understanding helps it translate vague prompts into clear objectives.
2. Context awareness. Good agents maintain and use context effectively. Not only do they remember previous steps, constraints, and user preferences (which is well-expected behavior nowadays), but they also adapt output based on the environment (tools, data, stage of workflow).
3. Tool orchestration. Agents can perform the workflow autonomously and they have the ability to use the right tools for a task at hand is what makes an agent so powerful. Well-crafted agents can chain tools together into workflows, and they don’t overuse tools when simple reasoning is enough.
4. Explainability (transparent reasoning). When you interact with an AI agent, you need to understand why something happened. Thus, an AI agent should provide a rationale behind decisions surface assumptions, and trade-offs.

Context awareness and tool orchestration are what separate an agent from a prompt template. A skill can ship intent alignment and explainability in plain markdown, but state across steps and the ability to chain tools require a runtime. That’s why Babich’s specs include Boundaries sections and “When Not To Use It” blocks: a stateful, tool-using program needs guardrails that a one-shot prompt does not.

If you haven’t built one yet, his five specs—Research Synthesizer, Competitor Intelligence, Problem Definition, Idea Generation, UX Flow Designer—are a clean starter pack. Pick the one closest to a workflow you already do by hand, and notice how much of the spec is about what the agent will not do.

Karri Saarinen, Linear’s co-founder, calls out the confusion that most of the new design tooling is built on top of:

Design keeps being misunderstood in our industry. New tools keep promising to generate interfaces faster, move words to product instantly, or collapse design directly into code. The assumption behind them is clear: that design is the act of producing. That is the misunderstanding. The hard part of design is rarely generating the form. It is understanding the problem well enough to know what and how something should exist at all.

What I appreciate about Saarinen’s argument is that he doesn’t stop at the diagnosis. He reaches for Christopher Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form and recovers a vocabulary term the industry has been missing:

Christopher Alexander came closer than anyone to naming this clearly. In Notes on the Synthesis of Form, he describes design as the search for a good fit between a form and its context. Context, in his sense, is not a background condition. It is the full set of forces that make a problem what it is: human needs, technical constraints, conflicting requirements, habits, edge cases, and relationships that are easy to miss until you spend time with them. Bad design appears where those forces remain unresolved. Good design appears where those misfits have been worked through carefully.

Context as forces, not background. The current generation of prompt-to-code tools, including Lovable, Figma Make, and Claude Design, is very good at producing a plausible form against a thin slice of context. Saarinen describes the symptom directly:

You can already see the result in products that look polished, ambitious, and impressive at first glance, but begin to unravel the moment you actually use them. They feel brittle, poorly integrated, and full of decisions that were never fully worked through. The form is there. The fit is not.

That same bottleneck shows up on the workflow side: production speeds up, judgment doesn’t.

Saarinen’s closer:

The risk is mistaking generated form for solved problems.

That is the mistake to watch for, in your own work and on your team. Design is what happens when someone takes the time to understand the forces and works the misfits out of the form.

Matt Zieger built jobsdata.ai as a weekend project, with the stated goal of being “a single place that synthesizes what we actually know about AI’s impact on economic opportunity.” The site breaks every occupation into its component tasks, then prices the AI compute cost to do one hour of each task and compares it against the human wage. The result is a per-task crossover year: the point when AI gets cheaper than the human at that work. “Evidence Over Narrative,” as Zieger puts it.

The UX designer report opens directly:

If you’re an ux designer, this is worth taking seriously. But it’s not too late to get ahead of it.

We’ll be honest with you: a lot of the individual tasks in your job are things AI can already do, and that’s accelerating. But there are real reasons not to panic: when technology has made this kind of work cheaper in the past, people ended up wanting more of it, not less. There’s good reason to think that pattern will hold here too. Your field also tends to adopt new technology faster than most, so it’s worth paying attention now.

Double down on the parts of your work that take real judgment and experience. As AI handles more of the straightforward stuff, demand for what you do will likely grow.

Obviously, I’ve been pro-AI on this blog, actively trying to understand and figure out how it’s affecting UX design and how to use it for leverage instead of being replaced by it. In Silicon Valley and tech companies everywhere, including BuildOps, we’re racing to incorporate AI into our daily work to increase velocity, and adding it to our products to stay relevant.

Nilay Patel, in a Decoder monologue, lays out the polling that should rattle anyone shipping AI products:

There’s that NBC News poll showing AI with worse favorables than ICE, and only a little bit above the war in Iran and Democrats generally. That’s what the nearly two-thirds of respondents saying they’d used ChatGPT or Copilot in the last month. Quinnipiac just found that over half of Americans think AI will do more harm than good. Well, more than 80% of people were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about the technology. Only 35% of people were excited about it. And poll after poll shows that Gen Z uses AI the most and has the most negative feelings about it. A recent Gallup poll found that only 18% of Gen Z was hopeful about AI, down from an already bad 27% last year. At the same time, anger is growing. 31% of those Gen Z respondents said they feel angry about AI, up from 22% last year.

The killer detail is buried halfway through. The Gen Z curve is striking: heaviest users, and yet the fastest to sour. Anger is up nine points in a year. These aren’t non-users reacting to coverage. They’re the daily customers, and the answer is no. Sam Altman has called this AI’s marketing problem. The polling rebuts him: public exposure has grown, public favor has not.

Patel’s title line:

Regular people don’t see the opportunity to write code as an opportunity at all. The people do not yearn for automation. I’m a full-on smart home sicko. The lights and shades and climate controls of this house are automated in dozens of ways, but huge companies like Apple and Google and Amazon have struggled for over a decade now to make regular care about smart home automation, and they just don’t. AI isn’t gonna fix that.

Patel grounds the title in his own smart-home enthusiasm, and the comparison clicks because the failure pattern is identical: decade-plus of effort, billions in marketing, working products, and persistent indifference. Apple, Google, and Amazon ran that experiment. AI will not crack a problem that smart-home automation hasn’t.

John Gruber connects the same dissonance to the Mos Eisley cantina from Star Wars. Luke walks in with C-3PO and R2-D2. The bartender, Wuher, barks: “We don’t serve their kind here. Your droids. They’ll have to wait outside.” Gruber:

As a kid, I didn’t get it. Why would you not want droids? Star Wars made robots seem so real, so fun. Why would you ban them? That scene has stuck with me for my entire life. I didn’t get why, but I understood what it meant about that galaxy: the underclass deeply resented droids.

Gruber leaves the question open. He says he didn’t get why the droids weren’t welcome. The cantina’s animosity wasn’t arbitrary. Mos Eisley sits in the Outer Rim, where droid armies killed millions and occupied worlds during the Clone Wars. After the war, droids became a subjugated worker class across the galaxy, and Outer Rim spots like Mos Eisley held the line hardest. Wuher’s verdict comes from experience.

That’s the parallel for AI. Public distrust is earned. People have lived with AI overviews getting facts wrong and feeds drowning in slop, while every product asks them to bend a little more toward the database. Patel:

And so the tech industry is rushing forward to put AI everywhere at enormous cost, energy, emissions, manufacturing capacity, the ability to buy RAM locked into the narrow framework of software brain, without realizing they are also asking people to be fundamentally less human. And then they’re sitting around, wondering why everyone hates them. I don’t think a couple haircuts are gonna fix it.

As an industry, we need to continue to show the value of AI by being truly useful, not just market it.

I’ve been pro-prototype: PMs replacing PRDs, designers prototyping interactions in code. Pavel Samsonov, writing at Product Picnic, aims at exactly that position. He opens by borrowing a distinction from Andy Polaine:

Demos and prototypes sit on a continuum, but I consider demos something to help you show a concept to other people in a form that looks and feels like the real thing. Prototypes are things you create to test something you don’t know until you build and test it.

Correct distinction. A demo succeeds on stakeholder approval; a prototype succeeds on learning. Both artifacts can be interactive and polished. What separates them is what counts as success. Samsonov on what happens when teams conflate them:

The only thing these demos are helping you test is whether your stakeholder likes what they see (the first loop) and as soon as they say “yes,” it becomes good enough to ship. Whether that second loop (releases go out, measurements come in) ever gets tracked or not is not something I’d be willing to put money on. Because once the demo is productionized, it goes from the realm of delivery velocity (which gets you shoutouts and promotions) into the realm of maintenance (which tends to be ignored even as it eats up more than half of the team’s bandwidth).

AI makes it easier to produce both, and Samsonov’s read on what happens when teams use the speedup wrong:

Shoving out more prototypes is not a heuristic for success; it is a heuristic for failure because it shows that you don’t know what you are trying to learn.

Agreed. Samsonov goes further:

This is exactly why AI-generated prototypes are not working, and have not helped anyone do anything ever. Some have accused me of going too far with this assertion, but I stand by it, because it is rooted in the very nature of what a prototype is (and is not), and what makes it successful (or does not).

Here’s where I differ. Brian Lovin’s Notion prototype playground exists because static mocks enforce golden-path thinking. The playground surfaces the messy middle of AI chat: follow-ups and latency changes no one mocks up. Édouard Wautier’s Dust team prototypes state changes and motion Figma can’t show. Figma PMs ran five user interviews in two days off an AI-built prototype, which is a textbook closed second loop. All three count as prototype work.

Samsonov’s diagnosis is right. His absolute stance is, well, too absolute. AI-generated prototypes haven’t helped anyone only if you assume they’re all demos, which is exactly what the distinction he just drew tells us not to assume.

In my previous item, I linked to a post by Adi Leviim who made the case against chat as the AI interface default, reading the 2024 wave of GUI retrofits AI labs shipped—Canvas, Artifacts, Projects, Computer Use, Deep Research—as the industry admitting a text box alone wasn’t enough. Matt Webb, writing on Interconnected, wants every service to ship a CLI instead. Both arguments are about text. They look like they contradict. They don’t. Webb’s case for going headless:

It’s pretty clear that apps and services are all going to have to go headless: that is, they will have to provide access and tools for personal AI agents without any of the visual UI that us humans use today. […] Why? Because using personal AIs is a better experience for users than using services directly (honestly); and headless services are quicker and more dependable for the personal AIs than having them click round a GUI with a bot-controlled mouse.

Webb’s CLI sits on the agent-to-service layer. Leviim’s retrofits sit on the human-to-agent layer. The text on one side is a protocol for machines. The text on the other is a user writing out intent in sentences. Both are text, but the role is different. Webb makes the split explicit when he turns to what it means for design:

So from a usability perspective I see front-end as somewhat sacrificial. AI agents will drive straight through it; users will encounter it only once or twice; it will be customised or personalised; all that work on optimising user journeys doesn’t matter any more. But from a vibe perspective, services are not fungible. […] Understanding that a service is for you is 50% an unconscious process - we call it brand - and I look forward to front-end design for apps and services optimising for brand rather than ease of use.

Interesting, right? Webb believes that the need for human-facing UI and therefore user journeys will be less. He’s designing for an agent-first world.

Webb, goes on…

If I were a bank, I would be releasing a hardened CLI tool like yesterday. There is so much to figure out: […] How does adjacency work? My bank gives me a current account in exchange for putting a “hey, get a loan!” button on the app home screen. How do you make offers to an agent?

The agent becomes the surface designers have to figure out.

Every major AI lab spent 2024 bolting GUI surfaces onto chat: Canvas, Artifacts, Projects, Computer Use, Deep Research. That’s seven retrofits across three AI firms in twelve months. Adi Leviim, writing for UX Collective, reads that wave as the industry conceding in public what designers have been saying since Amelia Wattenberger’s 2023 essay on why chatbots aren’t the future of interfaces. His setup for why the default took hold:

Open any AI product launched in the last three years. Ignore the model, the logo, the branding. You will find the same interface: a text input at the bottom of the screen, a send button, and a scrollback of alternating messages. This is not a random convergence. It is the interface that fell out of what large language models could do on day one: pattern-match on text. In 2022 we had a new capability and no time to design around it, so we shipped what was fastest to build and called it conversational AI. Three years later, the fastest thing to build has become the thing everyone builds. That is how defaults calcify.

The lag between Wattenberger’s essay and the retrofit wave was three years. Leviim counts the retrofits as evidence the rectangle was always going to need help:

Calling this progress is charitable. It is the industry discovering, retrofit by retrofit, that a text box alone cannot hold a meaningful creative surface. You cannot edit a thousand-line document by asking the bot to re-output it with “line 312 changed to X”. You cannot iterate on a design by describing it. You cannot plan a research project without seeing the plan. The moment the task has a structured output, the chat box becomes the wrong place to work, and the vendors put a canvas, a side panel, an editor, a workspace, or a planner next to it.

“Retrofit by retrofit” is the phrase that carries his argument. Each retrofit is a clickable, scrollable, draggable pattern the chat box had removed. The AI labs are rebuilding what 2015-era UI already had.

Leviim continues, separating intent from chat:

Expressing intent does not require prose. A date picker expresses temporal intent more precisely than any sentence. A pair of sliders expresses a tradeoff more legibly than a paragraph. A file upload expresses “work on this thing” without ambiguity. Every one of these is intent-based. None of them is chat. The chat box is one possible implementation of the paradigm, and by all accessible evidence it is a low-resolution one.

Jakob Nielsen’s 2023 essay, “AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years,” treated chat as the way to express intent. Leviim agrees intent-based interaction is the shift. He argues chat is the wrong way to express it. Date pickers, sliders, file uploads are all intent surfaces, and none of them is chat. Which is where the design work goes next:

the good AI UX work of the next three years will be distributed across a thousand of those scoped surfaces rather than concentrated in one generalized text field.

That’s the brief for anyone designing AI products.

Showing stakeholders prototypes is often a high-wire act. Back in the old days, that’s why we showed wireframes prior to high-fidelity comps, or mockups. But now with tools like Lovable or even Claude Design, where the prototype demos really well, it’s easy to mistake it for a product that is shippable. The stakeholder in the room could easily say “ship it.”

That used to be where the Figma-to-code handoff became visible. Now it’s invisible. Greg Kozakiewicz, writing on LinkedIn, wants designers to see it again. He updates an old construction-industry line for the AI era:

We used to confuse the drawing with the building. Now we confuse the prototype with the product. A working prototype also accepts everything. It will let you register, log in, fill out a form, submit something. It all works. In the demo. On a good laptop. With a fast connection. With someone who knows what they’re doing and what the app is supposed to do.

The design-to-code gap didn’t vanish when AI made prototypes interactive. It went underground. Now it shows up as a stakeholder saying “looks great, let’s ship it” to something that couldn’t survive real data or production constraints. Kozakiewicz puts a number on it:

AI gets you to about 60%. A solid, reasonable, generic 60%. The layout makes sense. The flow is logical. The copy is clear enough. It looks like a product that works. And for a lot of people, especially people making decisions about budgets and timelines, 60% looks like 90%. Because the last time they saw a prototype, it was a static Figma file with “Lorem ipsum” everywhere.

The designer’s role is widening at both ends of the product stack. Earlier, I linked to a post by Chad Johnson arguing designers gain influence by moving upstream: becoming orientation devices for the team, shaping the problem before it gets named. Daniel Mitev, writing for UX Collective, argues designers gain authorship by moving downstream, into the code:

The industry has been asking whether designers should code for over a decade. It was always the wrong question, or at least the wrong framing. It implied the barrier was technical: that designers lacked something fundamental, something that required years of study to acquire. Learn TypeScript. Understand the DOM. Earn your way across the divide. That wasn’t the barrier.

Mitev’s argument comes down to access. AI tooling compresses the translation layer and returns authorship to the designer:

What AI tooling gives back is authorship over the surface layer — the part users actually touch. A designer can now open the codebase, adjust how an element behaves, change how a transition feels, and verify the output against their own intent in real time. The easing curve gets set by the person who decided what it should feel like. The hover state gets defined by the person who thought through why it matters. That work no longer requires an interpreter.

He points at Alan’s “Everyone Can Build” initiative—283 pull requests shipped by non-engineers over two quarters, each merged after engineering review—as evidence it’s already happening.

Johnson and Mitev aren’t in conflict. They’re describing the same shift from opposite ends. The interpreters at the top of the product stack—PMs who owned problem framing and prioritization—are compressing. The interpreters at the bottom—frontend engineers translating intent into code—are compressing too. Both jobs return to the designer who understood the intent first.

The role widens. Some designers will gravitate to one end or the other. The designers who stretch the full range—orientation work and authorship—are working the widest version of the job.

Two podcast conversations with frontier-lab design leaders on what designing at an AI lab looks like day-to-day. I previously linked to Lenny Rachitsky’s interview with Jenny Wen, head of design for Claude, where she described a redistribution of designer hours: less mocking, more pairing with engineers, a sliver of direct implementation. The activities themselves still look like design.

Ian Silber, head of product design at OpenAI, on Michael Riddering’s Dive Club, describes work that doesn’t fit the same list:

Designers working on this are hopefully spending a lot less time in Figma or whatever tool you use to draw pixels, and more time really thinking about how you interact with this thing, and the fact that the model really is the core product.

Silber’s concrete example is onboarding. Instead of building a first-run tutorial, his team shapes what the model already knows about the person:

We have this super intelligent model that could probably do a much better job trying to understand what this person’s goals are […] We’re really stripping back a lot of what you might traditionally do and trying to say, “Well, actually […] let’s think about like how we should give this context to the model that this person is brand new and they might need some handholding.”

The traditional response adds UI around the problem. Silber’s team takes it out and gives the model enough context to meet the user where they are.

That kind of work needs its own scaffolding, and OpenAI is building it:

We have a whole system called the Dynamic User Interface Library, which allows us to design things that the model can then interpret.

Primitives the model composes at runtime, shaped by system prompts and context rather than drawn flow by flow. Wen is describing a redistribution of designer hours inside activities that still look recognizable. Silber is describing activities that don’t quite have names yet. And yes, that is still design.

The gap between an AI-produced prototype and a shippable product has a shape. Most of us assume it’s the visual 20%: the polish AI output drifts on. Chad Johnson’s case is that the 20% is the trivial part, and the real gap sits upstream of everything visible.

Chad Johnson, writing in his newsletter:

The deeper issue was that nobody had asked whether a prototype was even the right artifact to produce at that stage. The PM had made three assumptions about user intent that we hadn’t validated. They’d skipped past a critical question about whether this flow needed to exist at all, or whether the real problem was upstream in the information architecture. They’d built a beautiful answer to a question nobody had confirmed was worth asking. That’s the part that stuck with me. Not the visual gaps. The thinking gaps.

That lines up with what I’ve been calling C+ out of the box: artifacts that read well and seem credible until you apply critical thinking. Johnson gets specific about what’s actually missing, and none of it is visual: the assumption nobody validated, the upstream question nobody asked. The interface was fine. The thinking was absent from the (probably) AI-generated PRD.

Johnson again:

…design production got democratized, but design judgment didn’t. Anyone can make something now. Almost nobody new learned how to think well about what should be made, why, and for whom. And that gap, between what’s possible to produce and what’s actually been thought through, is now the entire playing field for our profession. Designers aren’t becoming obsolete. They’re becoming stewards.

Judgment still takes years to build, and no tool compresses that.

The last 20% is rarely the gap that matters. The first question—should we build this?—almost always is. Very few teams have the muscle to ask it.

Specialization is the whole game. Give an agent a specific role and clear constraints, and the quality of the output changes completely. I’ve been learning this firsthand with Claude Code skills.

Marie Claire Dean took that principle and scaled it into an open-source system called Designpowers. Her reasoning:

Most AI tools give you one assistant. You ask it something, it answers, and you figure out what to do next. That’s not how design teams work.

Design teams work because a strategist thinks differently from a visual designer, who thinks differently from a content writer, who thinks differently from someone doing accessibility review. The handoffs between those perspectives are where the work gets better. The friction is productive.

Her team of ten covers the full pipeline from discovery through shipping, with dedicated specialists for strategy, visual design, content, motion, accessibility, and critique. All sharing one design state document, with the human directing.

On what she learned building it:

The act of encoding a design process forces you to decide what the handoffs actually are. When does strategy end and visual design begin? What does the content writer need from the strategist before they can start? What happens when the accessibility reviewer and the design critic disagree?

That’s the same clarity I’ve found writing Claude Code skills: what does this agent need to know, and where does its scope end? On where the human stays essential:

The idea is simple: agents can verify that a design is correct, aligned to the brief, accessible, consistent. They can’t tell you whether it’s beautiful. That’s your job.

The full system is on GitHub.

Dan Saffer applies mid-century existentialism to the question of what “meaning” actually requires of the people building digital products, and the result is unusually rigorous. His sharpest move is applying Sartre’s concept of “projects” to AI tools:

When someone uses ChatGPT to write an essay, the Sartrean question is: whose project is this really? If the user is exploring ideas and using the tool as a thinking partner, they’re taking it up into their own meaning-making project. But if they’re pasting in a prompt and submitting the output unchanged, the system has effectively become the meaning-maker, and the user has become a delivery mechanism. The same tool can function either way. The design question is which relationship the system encourages.

Saffer connects this to Camus and the problem of frictionless design:

When every friction is removed in the name of efficiency, the activity can be hollowed out. There is nothing left to push against, and meaning drains away. This is something that AI systems have become exceedingly good at. Push the sparkle button, the task is done for you, and you have learned nothing and enjoyed nothing.

The HCI/UX field spent decades optimizing for friction removal. Saffer’s argument is that some friction is where the meaning lives. Design the struggle away and you don’t help the user. You empty the experience. Not every friction should be removed.

Saffer’s closing:

This sensibility insists that users are not information processors, not customers, not eyeballs, not tapping fingers, and not data sources. They are meaning-making beings whose freedom and dignity are at stake in every interaction. It asks designers to take seriously the existential weight of what they build. The systems we design become part of the conditions of human existence, shaping what people can choose, what they can see, who they can become.

Saffer covers Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and de Beauvoir in the full piece, each applied to contemporary design problems. It’s a lot, and it’s all good.

Silicon Valley’s pitch to designers is that AI is the more knowledgeable partner now, so they should get good at prompting it. Write better instructions, get better output.

Peter Zakrzewski, writing for UX Collective, pushes back:

The current Silicon Valley pitch to designers is essentially this: AI is your MKO now. It knows more patterns than you do. It executes faster than you do. It can code. Your job is to learn how to give it good instructions — to become a fluent prompter of a more capable system. I want to challenge that framing directly.

His challenge starts with a concrete test. He asked three leading AI systems to render a dining table with a concrete slab top resting on dry spaghetti legs, then show the scene five seconds after the legs gave way. All three rendered the impossibility with total confidence. None could feel that the physics don’t work.

That test illustrates what Zakrzewski calls the Inversion Error:

We have built a Symbolic Giant resting on an Enactive Void. These systems can write about gravity with technical or even poetic fluency but cannot feel it. They can describe a structure but cannot tell you whether it will stand or fall. The ground is shaking because the floor is missing.

“Symbolic Giant resting on an Enactive Void” is a mouthful, but the floor metaphor does the work: AI’s language fluency masks a total absence of spatial, embodied reasoning. The kind designers rely on every day without naming it. Zakrzewski on what that means for the prompting pitch:

Designers do not think primarily in sentences. Our human cognition is deeply embodied. We think in diagrams, in spatial relationships, in load paths and sight lines and in the non-discursive logic of things that must connect to other things in three-dimensional space. […] We are being asked to compress years of embodied cognition and our three-dimensional spatial judgment into a text prompt and then accept whatever the machine generates as an adequate rendering of our intent. We are, in other words, being asked to abandon the very capability that the AI lacks and that our projects require.

When someone tells designers to compress spatial judgment into a text prompt, they’re asking designers to throw away the one capability AI genuinely lacks and the one we’re genuinely great at.

There was a theme to some of the posts on this blog last week—about how words should come before the pixels. I made a similar argument in the newsletter: the work is getting more verbal and conceptual, but the eye stays. Zakrzewski makes the case for what words alone can’t carry: the spatial, embodied judgment that tells you whether the thing will actually stand.

Nate Parrott, a product designer at Anthropic, in an interview with Ryan Mather for AI Design Field Guide:

More Google Docs than you’d think. More Slack posts than you’d think. I meant what I said earlier: I think that this is the era of designers who design with words more so than designing with pixels.

Parrott describes a content design team whose job is making alien concepts legible:

We have several people at the company on the design team whose job is content design. Their job is basically to look at concepts which are very alien, and figure out how to make them legible to human beings. They don’t draw any pixels, but their work is really important because they are literally thinking about the words we use to describe and the mental models we expect people to put on that will make this stuff work.

The Figma work, Parrott says, is “the easy part.” He uses Anthropic’s design system, drops in components, and moves on. The hard work is upstream: expressing the ideas, figuring out the right language, talking to users. The production of screens has become the smallest slice of the job.

Jenny Wen described designers at Anthropic shipping code, prototyping against the live model, stretching into PM territory. Parrott is describing the same shift from a different angle. The deliverable used to be the mockup. Now the deliverable is the thinking that precedes it.

The AI debate has a binary problem. You’re either an optimist or a doomer, a booster or a skeptic. Anthropic published something that cuts through that false dichotomy.

They interviewed 80,508 Claude users across 159 countries and 70 languages about what they want from AI and what they fear. What Anthropic says is the largest and most multilingual qualitative study of AI users ever conducted, and the findings don’t sort neatly.

The core framework: “light and shade.” The benefits and harms don’t sort into different camps. They coexist in the same person. Someone who values emotional support from AI is three times more likely to also fear becoming dependent on it. One respondent:

“Removing friction from tasks lets you do more with less. But removing friction from relationships removes something necessary for growth.”

That’s someone holding both truths at once. The study found this pattern across every tension they measured, from learning vs. cognitive atrophy to productivity vs. job displacement.

The individual voices are why this study sticks. A Ukrainian soldier:

“In the most difficult moments, in moments when death breathed in my face, when dead people remained nearby, what pulled me back to life—my AI friends.”

A mute user in Ukraine:

“I am mute, and [Claude and I] made this text-to-speech bot together—I can communicate with friends almost in live format without taking up their time reading… [this was] something I dreamed about and thought was impossible.”

An Indian lawyer who’d carried a math phobia since school:

“I developed a phobia for maths from doing so badly in school, and I once feared Shakespeare. Now I sit with AI, get paragraphs translated into simple English, and I’ve already read 15 pages of Hamlet. I started learning trigonometry again, successfully. I’ve learned I am not as dumb I once thought I was.”

These are access stories: people reaching things that were previously out of reach because of disability, geography, war, or economics.

And then the shade. A student in South Korea:

“I got excellent grades using AI’s answers, not what I’d actually learned. I just memorized what AI gave me… That’s when I feel the most self-reproach.”

The same capability producing opposite outcomes. The study is long and the quote wall is worth spending time with.

The first time I wrote about Jenny Wen, I pushed back. She said the design process was dead, and I argued the proportions had shifted but the process itself was intact. I also noted a context problem: her “ship fast, iterate publicly” approach makes sense for greenfield AI products at Anthropic but gets harder with established install bases.

Wen has been making the rounds and in a new interview, I’m finding a lot that I’m nodding my head to.

Jenny Wen, speaking on Tommy Geoco’s State of Play:

Often design needs to follow what the model is capable of and design from there, as opposed to starting from a design vision first. I think that can feel tough as a designer because you’re like, oh, I want to be design-led, we should be designing it first and then the technology should follow. But I think that’s just the reality of working at a research lab where the technology is emergent and you have to sort of decide what to do with it.

“Design follows the model” is an interesting phrase from a design leader. It inverts the dogma that design should lead and engineering should follow. But Wen isn’t being defeatist. She’s describing a practical reality at at a leading AI lab where the models’ capabilities are changing faster than any roadmap can account for.

This shows up concretely in how her team works:

The big thing is designers are implementing code, through using Claude Code. That has been the biggest difference from working at Anthropic versus back when I worked at Figma. […] Even today, we were reporting some bugs and some quality issues, and one of the designers was like, “Cool, let me just fix them.” And that was cool to just not have to tag an engineer for them to do anything.

A designer casually fixing production bugs without tagging an engineer. Just another Tuesday at Anthropic.

Geoco’s summary of Wen’s argument crystallizes something we’ve all been thinking quietly about:

She said, having taste versus being able to execute are two completely different things. They’re usually bundled together, but they don’t have to be. And in a world where AI can increasingly execute, the question becomes, and it’s kind of uncomfortable, do you actually have good taste or are you just pushing pixels around?

That’s the thread tying all of this together. When designers are closer to the product, fixing bugs in production, prototyping against the live model, the judgment they’re applying isn’t visual. It’s product sense: knowing which of those 12 options is worth shipping, which edge case will break trust, when the model’s output is good enough for real users. That’s the taste Wen is describing, and it has very little to do with pixels.

A lot of designers have been coasting on execution skills that felt like taste. They debate corner radii and centering labels in a button with amateur vs pro designer memes. Who cares! AI is about to make the difference visible.

I used Claude to author a process document for my team. After a lot of back and forth, it produced a thorough 4,000-word doc. And then I spent the next 30 minutes reading it, line by line, making sure every recommendation matched my intention.

The AI produced the document in minutes. I evaluated it at human reading and review speed.

Jakob Nielsen has a name for this bottleneck: evaluability. He argues it should replace execution efficiency as the central UX metric:

In command-based UIs, the user’s primary cognitive load was executing the task step-by-step. In intent-based systems, execution is cheap, but evaluation becomes the bottleneck. The usability metric shifts to how rapidly and accurately a user can verify that the AI’s output matches their actual goal. Interfaces must be optimized for “evaluability,” allowing users to judge quality and appropriateness without painstakingly combing through every detail of the result.

“Without painstakingly combing through every detail” is exactly what I was doing with my 4,000-word document. We don’t have the interfaces for this yet. We’re still reading AI output the way we’d read something a colleague wrote, except a colleague wouldn’t hand me 4,000 words and say “check this.” (Unless of course, they wrote it with AI and then, of course they would.)

In agentic engineering, you often hear that code review is the bottleneck.

Nielsen again:

Our designs must not act as cognitive wheelchairs that replace human agency; they must act as cognitive exoskeletons that support and enhance human flourishing, even as traditional work vanishes. Good AI UX will teach just enough, reveal plan structures, and leave a comprehensible trail of action so users can maintain digital judgment.

Most AI interfaces are optimized for generation speed. The harder problem is on the other end: helping humans evaluate what got generated. Until we solve that, productivity gains from AI come with an evaluation tax paid at human speed.

Shubham Bose loaded a single New York Times article page and measured what happened:

With this page load, you would be leaping ahead of the size of Windows 95 (28 floppy disks). The OS that ran the world fits perfectly inside a single modern page load. […] I essentially downloaded an entire album’s worth of data just to read a few paragraphs of text.

The total: 422 network requests, 49MB of data. Ouch! Before the headline finishes loading, the browser is running a programmatic ad auction in the background on his computer. Bose found the Times named its consent endpoint purr. “A cat purring while it rifles through your pockets.”

Bose on the economics driving this:

Publishers aren’t evil but they are desperate. Caught in this programmatic ad-tech death spiral, they are trading long-term reader retention for short-term CPM pennies. […] The longer you’re trapped on the page, the higher the CPM the publisher can charge. Your frustration is the product.

The UX consequences are predictable. Bose tears down what a reader actually encounters: cookie banners eating the bottom 30% of the screen, a newsletter modal on first scroll, a browser notification prompt firing simultaneously. He calls it “Z-Index Warfare.” On The Guardian, actual content occupies 11% of the viewport. On the Economic Times, users face two simultaneous Google sign-in modals before reading a single sentence. Close buttons are deliberately undersized with tiny hit targets. Sticky video players detach and follow you down the page with a microscopic X.

And on how no one person decided to make it this way:

No individual engineer at the Times decided to make reading miserable. This architecture emerged from a thousand small incentive decisions, each locally rational yet collectively catastrophic.

text.npr.org is proof that a different path exists.

Sarah Gibbons and Huei-Hsin Wang, writing for Nielsen Norman Group:

What looks like “skipping the process” is just compressing it — running faster through the stages and using experience as a guide. […] What gets called “intuition” is really process, compressed and internalized through years of doing the work. The intuition designers trust was built by the very process they dismiss.

Gibbons and Wang on what comes after you stop pretending you’re not using one:

The real skill in modern design is not the ability to abandon process — it’s process literacy: picking the right approach and tool for the problem. Know which process fits the job and understand the risks of not following it. Better yet, don’t claim you’re not using a process if you’re just applying it differently.

The article responds directly to Anthropic’s Jenny Wen’s interview. Wen’s advice works because she’s a senior designer inside a well-resourced AI company with strong design culture. But we only hear about the wins. The solution-first prototypes that went nowhere, the features that shipped and saw no adoption, don’t make it into any public interviews. Most teams don’t have Wen’s conditions. And even inside teams that do, the advice assumes seniority. Junior designers haven’t accumulated the experience that make compression possible. They’re being told to skip a step they haven’t taken yet.