Where's the AI design Renaissance?

> My hunch: vibe coding is a lot like stock-picking – everyone’s always blabbing about their big wins. Ask what their annual rate of return is above the S&P, and it’s a quieter conversation

Best summary I've heard so far

LLMs are architected to aim toward the center of the bell curve of their training data. You shouldn't expect them to produce innovative ideas, but the upside is they also won't produce terrible ones.

The same applies to design. Most of the time, you get something that "doesn't suck", which is perfectly fine for projects where using a designer isn't worth it, like internal corporate pages. But consumer-facing pages require nuance to understand the client and their branding (which clients often struggle to articulate themselves), and that's not something current models can capture.

To me, the key quote is the simple "If you had told me in late 2022 I’d be saying these things 3 years later, I would’ve been pretty surprised." As someone with little exposure to the design industry, seeing how quickly AI could generate images, I'd been under the assumption that the AI takeover was already well underway there, so was surprised to learn that it's not.

If anything, that gives some comfort around the future of engineering job prospects. While there's still room to worry, "yeah but design is fundamentally human, while engineering is mostly technical and can be automated", I'm sure, just as design has realized, that when we get to a point where AI should be taking over, we'll realize that there's a lot of non-technical things that engineers do, that AI cannot replace.

Basically, if replacing a workforce is the goal, AI image generators and code generators look like replacement technologies from afar, but when you look closer you realize they're "the right solution to the wrong problem", to be a true replacement tech, and in fact don't really move the needle. And maybe AI, by definition of being artificial and intelligence (as opposed to real common sense) as a whole, is fundamentally an approach that "solves the wrong problem" as a replacement tech, even as AGI or even ASI gets created.

Design moves at the speed of culture; not technology. It took 3 years of people messing with mobile phones before it occurred to someone to implement "pull down to refresh" and much longer for it to be common practice that people just expect from UX. I think people are still learning what they want from an AI experience.

I do think you have to be pretty targeted with your predictions, though. Consumer product design seems to be evolving differently from B2B and at a different pace. Growth curves are different for each.

I think it raises the bar on what’s needed to be a designer, but I don’t think it replaces the need for a designer.

I’d draw parallels to web design. Yes some frameworks made it incredibly easy for anyone to whip up a decent looking professional site. But then 95% of websites were the same boring single page scroll nonsense with some fancy CSS. It checks a box but isn’t notable. If you hire a designer to do something truly original then you can stand out.

It will be the same with AI where “good enough to check the box” becomes easy, but going beyond that still requires skill and experience.

The number one thing that AI is lacking is taste, precisely the reason we need designers in the first place. An engineer (most engineers are not designers) alone, or an LLM is not thinking about good design principles and doing the things needed to develop good taste.

It's the reason why LLMs are horrible at writing, and the reason why good design is really hard to get out of an LLM. Figma Make and Claude Code are really just using the out of the box CSS from shadcn that's why everything looks the same.

Lots of these discussions are simplifying design to 'making things look pretty'. That's just not true for even the more visual-based design disciplines like graphic design. And the 'regular' product design (ux/ui/ixd) happening in most tech companies has very little of this compared to the rest of the scope of what a designer really does.

Product design isn't a layer that you apply. It's not an output of some prompt. It's a difficult-to-define process of crafting the interface between the user and product's functionality.

Design is one of those things that succeeds or fails in subtlety and both are difficult to quantify and back propagate through any sort of process, let alone training a model. The same way we figured out that the microwave can make approximations to good food quickly, so too shall we see that AI can do the same with tasks that rely heavily on a connection to people's aesthetics.

I'd add a #3 to the "explainable with" list: the trend towards relentlessly outsourcing work, often in situations where you get 1/2 the quality on 2x the timeline, because it's still cheaper than good engineers and the ostensible relentless time pressure turns out to not exist if offshore workers are cheap enough.

"After 2.5 years of insane hype, there’s no evidence that current AI is making the design process faster"

This is antidotally untrue. I work for a small startup. We don't have the money / aren't willing to pay for a full-time designer. So, let's just say, our UI design has always been pretty terrible. With AI, using claude, to generate design and HTML / CSS based on requirements, the design that has been generated has been heads and tails better than anything we ever came up with alone.

I thought a huge part of the perceived value of ChatGPT etc. is the ability to bypass the work of designers. The whole dream of AI is not having to deal with what someone else thought the solution to your problem was, and instead just skipping to the end.

> After 2.5 years of insane hype, there’s no evidence that current AI is making the design process faster

This does not match my experience. I have been using Claude for speeding up design. Describe your page and ask it to use Tailwind and it will come up with some interesting designs. You still need a designer because some designs it comes up with are over the top, and need to be moderated.