23 Comments
User's avatar
Marios Vasilakis's avatar

Filling the tech stack graveyard is the first symptom of overreacting

Nothing is dead

Everything evolves at each core

Thomas Budiman's avatar

Some people harvest engagement with overhyped takes. Tools, roles, and skills indeed evolve.

Cameron Johnson's avatar

Tell that to the graveyard of Google products 🪦

rish vee's avatar

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.

Thomas Budiman's avatar

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.

jeancharles amey's avatar

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.

Thomas Budiman's avatar

Totally agree, I can't wait to see other design tools challenge the landscape. I see potential in @penpot!

jeancharles amey's avatar

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.

Daniel Bezos's avatar

I don’t think so. Wrote something recently about creative tools:

https://open.substack.com/pub/pixeldahn/p/designing-for-creation?r=1vxr85&utm_medium=ios

Inés Flor's avatar

This was a wonderful read and I absolutely agree with you!

Justus Wunschik's avatar

I totally agree! Print with potatoes or draw with your feed, as long as your‘re understanding design as a process and communicate with people it‘s fine. AI fuels FOMO and anger if you’re seeing it as an enemy instead of a tool. The whole industry is poisoned by the stupid idea that speed and saving money would lead us anywhere. They do not understand a thing.

Thomas Budiman's avatar

Haha print with potatoes - even drawing on napkin could be a million dollar 😃

Junaisha Errum's avatar

This is what I truly wanted to hear 😌

Thomas Budiman's avatar

Thanks. What else do you want to hear? 🙂

Vitaly Gachkovsky's avatar

this article made me feel better

Ali Moody's avatar

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*

Thomas Budiman's avatar

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!

Diego Kolsky's avatar

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?

Thomas Budiman's avatar

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.

Diego Kolsky's avatar

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!

Edmiel Leandro's avatar

Not even Adobe XD or Axure is dead.

Martin Sitar's avatar

I always thought the value designers bring isn’t in drawing circles and boxes in whatever tool. Like you said in your post Photoshop, Sketch, Figma, [insert next tool here], the tools will always change and evolve. The true value is in seeing opportunities and connecting the dots in unique ways to create solutions that help other people. I’m excited to see how AI enables us to do that better.