This hits hard. “Design as a verb” is a lovely concept and I think it teases an expansive and dynamic definition of what a designer can do. I do agree we should enable and encourage that.
I’d be curious to see how design roles changes within different settings, from tech to advertising to cpg. I suspect we’ll see more unicorn designers that can do literally everything but with the help of AI.. and less of expert designers niched into one thing. Although, there will always be experts, I’m just not sure they’ll be revered the same.
Absolutely. While some things will become commoditized, others won't. And yes, as you said, thinking of design as a verb is expansive, it's dynamic, fluid, and often fuzzy – and that's where our agency as designers is needed.
Besides AI, the biggest threat to Figma isn't projects being made by unicorn designers or 10x developers; it's the price of Figma itself.
Companies I am working with have cost organizations that are starting to question the legitimacy of Figma and its monopoly.
Sooner or later, this question will move some lines, and like Sketch before it, Figma will have to face competition. Probably before the end of the year.
Great read. I think it will be interesting to see how craft and "design as verb" transforms as AI becomes even more prolific (and cheaper). But will the designers of tomorrow have to build character making UI specs in Adobe Illustrator? Wireframes in Indesign? *designer shakes fist at cloud*
Haha, that’s a good one! I wanted to post the meme. Hate that Substack doesn’t allow images in post comments.
To be honest, I’m growing weary of jumping from one tool to another, though part of it makes me feel like a kid again, knowing I can build this app or create Minecraft add-ons for my kid.
I guess the true skill these days is just being resilient and stay relevant!
Looking through the men’s of ‘verb’ is a great exercise. One difference between machines and humans is that AI (for now?) operates in the domain of predictability. LLMs are trained to match what’s known to what’s know. I would describe AI’s output as educated guesses. When creating, we humans go beyond that—we add perception. We employ sensing (including emotion) to make decisions. Maybe that’s behind your call to focus on the hard/difficult quadrant: we (designers) may need to keep on top of the machine’s makeability?
Love that you added re: perception and sense-making.
The irony is when we say we’re doing "innovation" work, but fully rely on AI, it’s like walking backwards toward the future. Human reinforcement is definitely needed in the process.
Also, it's interesting you mentioned "educated guess." I read about abductive reasoning as a designer, described as an educated guess based on incomplete observation. There’s something interesting there to explore: machine's educated guess and or vs. human's educated guess.
All good. I really enjoyed reading your article. Yes—the power of the computer is its weakness, re: innovation. It can process a universe of known information and has a strong prediction power. But it’s limited without the ability to see beyond, and I doubt it recurses using ‘weighted’ outcomes (predictions the llm sees as faulty.) we have that ability to customize our judgement, so even through guessing can get farther. Cool follow up, Thomas!
Filling the tech stack graveyard is the first symptom of overreacting
Nothing is dead
Everything evolves at each core
Some people harvest engagement with overhyped takes. Tools, roles, and skills indeed evolve.
Tell that to the graveyard of Google products 🪦
This hits hard. “Design as a verb” is a lovely concept and I think it teases an expansive and dynamic definition of what a designer can do. I do agree we should enable and encourage that.
I’d be curious to see how design roles changes within different settings, from tech to advertising to cpg. I suspect we’ll see more unicorn designers that can do literally everything but with the help of AI.. and less of expert designers niched into one thing. Although, there will always be experts, I’m just not sure they’ll be revered the same.
Absolutely. While some things will become commoditized, others won't. And yes, as you said, thinking of design as a verb is expansive, it's dynamic, fluid, and often fuzzy – and that's where our agency as designers is needed.
Besides AI, the biggest threat to Figma isn't projects being made by unicorn designers or 10x developers; it's the price of Figma itself.
Companies I am working with have cost organizations that are starting to question the legitimacy of Figma and its monopoly.
Sooner or later, this question will move some lines, and like Sketch before it, Figma will have to face competition. Probably before the end of the year.
Totally agree, I can't wait to see other design tools challenge the landscape. I see potential in @penpot!
Had the chance to see the release 2.6 to come from penpot, the one with tokens, it’s huge.
The overall experience around tokens is much more understandable and user friendly, aligned with Design Token Standardization from DRCG.
This was a wonderful read and I absolutely agree with you!
this article made me feel better
Great read. I think it will be interesting to see how craft and "design as verb" transforms as AI becomes even more prolific (and cheaper). But will the designers of tomorrow have to build character making UI specs in Adobe Illustrator? Wireframes in Indesign? *designer shakes fist at cloud*
Haha, that’s a good one! I wanted to post the meme. Hate that Substack doesn’t allow images in post comments.
To be honest, I’m growing weary of jumping from one tool to another, though part of it makes me feel like a kid again, knowing I can build this app or create Minecraft add-ons for my kid.
I guess the true skill these days is just being resilient and stay relevant!
Looking through the men’s of ‘verb’ is a great exercise. One difference between machines and humans is that AI (for now?) operates in the domain of predictability. LLMs are trained to match what’s known to what’s know. I would describe AI’s output as educated guesses. When creating, we humans go beyond that—we add perception. We employ sensing (including emotion) to make decisions. Maybe that’s behind your call to focus on the hard/difficult quadrant: we (designers) may need to keep on top of the machine’s makeability?
Thanks, Diego! How are you doing!?
Love that you added re: perception and sense-making.
The irony is when we say we’re doing "innovation" work, but fully rely on AI, it’s like walking backwards toward the future. Human reinforcement is definitely needed in the process.
Also, it's interesting you mentioned "educated guess." I read about abductive reasoning as a designer, described as an educated guess based on incomplete observation. There’s something interesting there to explore: machine's educated guess and or vs. human's educated guess.
All good. I really enjoyed reading your article. Yes—the power of the computer is its weakness, re: innovation. It can process a universe of known information and has a strong prediction power. But it’s limited without the ability to see beyond, and I doubt it recurses using ‘weighted’ outcomes (predictions the llm sees as faulty.) we have that ability to customize our judgement, so even through guessing can get farther. Cool follow up, Thomas!
What’s figma