This looks great!
I miss spaces in London’s design community to talk about more than "taste".
Where do we speculate about the future of interfaces, especially human–AI interaction?
So @IniAbiodun and I are starting an HCI Paper Reading Club in London! 👇
We used to draw wireframes and have long discussions around if the solution is best for the problem.
Seeing the finished UI within a second is impressive but can also bypass the problem and lean into the speed of shipping something because it looks ready.
“designing much faster than the others” — this so daft and makes it clear they don’t understand design at all. “Designing fast” (or slow) is just not a thing. If you conflate “producing ui by piecing together stuff” and “design” then the former (which is a form of assembly-line practice) can surely be fast or slow.
What makes the practice of design challenging is not how to put a ui or poster together, it’s what the pieces are, what the message is, what is being communicated, how it all works together.
So many of today’s “design” AI tools focus almost exclusively on the production part, on putting stuff together. I’d love to see an AI design tool that forms a deep understanding of a problem over the course of days or months and works like a creative partner. Call me on my bullshit, thinks about the whole, isn’t concerned really about the final arrangement of elements as much as it would understand the story and the message.
Dan H retweeted
What can we remove?
Our bias is to always add more. More rules, more procedures, more code, more features, more stuff. Interdependencies proliferate, and gradually strangle us. Systems want to grow and grow, but without pruning, they collapse. Slowly, then spectacularly.
When a piece of trash drifts across the beach, it is our duty to pick it up so the next person can enjoy a pristine shoreline. When a thousand pieces litter the beach, it is too late. We can only lament the landscape. That’s just how beaches are now.
A good system is designed to be periodically cleared of cruft. It has a built-in counterbalance. Without this pressure, our bias drives us to add band-aid after band-aid, until the only choice is to destroy the whole system and start from scratch.
Why is it so much easier to add than to remove? Maybe because we attach our identity to what is visible. But there is a difference between the ornamentation that defines our style and the vestigial burdens we carry.
Remember those who did the invisible work of removing. Their legacy was not to build a sand castle, but to care for the beautiful beach on which we play.
ALT Our bias is to always add more. More rules, more procedures, more code, more features, more stuff. Interdependencies proliferate, and gradually strangle us. Systems want to grow and grow, but without pruning, they collapse. Slowly, then spectacularly. When a piece of trash drifts across the beach, it is our duty to pick it up so the next person can enjoy a pristine shoreline. When a thousand pieces litter the beach, it is too late. We can only lament the landscape. That’s just how beaches are now. A good system is designed to be periodically cleared of cruft. It has a built-in counterbalance. Without this pressure, our bias drives us to add band-aid after band-aid, until the only choice is to destroy the whole system and start from scratch. Why is it so much easier to add than to remove? Maybe because we attach our identity to what is visible. But there is a difference between the ornamentation that defines our style and the vestigial burdens we carry.
Dan H retweeted
human-in-the-loop was mostly a rubber stamp. per anthropic's claude code study of 1,053 testers, people caught 13.6% of dangerous commands, auto mode 89%. next week it becomes the default for new sessions in most claude apps on pro, max and team
It’s easy to run fast with the Technology but the skill is finding where to slow down the process.
Narrative violation: meetings are back.
With Opus 5.5, executing on tasks that are single-player between a human and computer is largely solved. The bottleneck is aligning between humans on what to build, not stepping on toes, and change management.
My recent most productive days have been 70-80% over a whiteboard with teammates. We don't leave until we're precisely aligned on what to build ("what prompt are we going to write?").
Related: I think whiteboards or designs as medium for alignment are much better than text documents.
AI removed the friction from making things.
The friction was where the thinking happened.
People who used ChatGPT freely got more creative, until it was taken away.
The ones who wrote their own ideas first came out ahead.
Think First, ChatGPT Later (2026, 196 people): link.springer.com/article/10…
GPT-4 made consultants 25% faster.
It also made them worse!
Boston Consulting Group tested 768 consultants. On tasks just outside what the AI could handle, accuracy dropped from 85% to 60%.
The hard part could be knowing which task you’re on and also how we design for this.
The study, plus what other research says about who benefits from AI at work: aiuxevidence.com/e/who-benef…
Made this little dude 👀 starts getting tired when battery is low and sends updates from @bot inspo from @steveruizok
Live shadcn theme builder 👀
Introducing Graphical.
It's a simple, powerful, and fun tool to design visual languages, style components, and work with coding agents to create interfaces that look memorable and feel unique.
I hope you'll check it out at graphicalui.com!
There is something unique about the whole buzz experience I feel like it’s slack but rebuilt from the ground up for AI agents and humans to collaborate.
Dan H retweeted
A Brown professor gave his students a take-home midterm exam. After suspecting many cheated using AI, he made the final in-person. The orange dots are the midterm scores and the gray dots are the final scores. Looks like all but 3 cheated on the midterm.
Dan H retweeted
I’m growing a longevity garden.
Looking for someone to build it with me.
+ soil chemistry
+ nutrient density
+ toxin testing
+ seed optimization
+ data monitoring
+ lab testing
Dan H retweeted
I have been thinking about whether to comment on this. Not clear if Gal is serious, rage baiting, etc. Whatever the case, it has spread enough in the design community that I want to share some thoughts.
The psychological journey people go through with AI is quite fascinating to me. A new model launches, people think the world has changed, they sometimes have an existential crisis, then they play with the model, they understand its strengths and limitations and then they settle down. A few weeks later, the cycle repeats.
On top of this, even before AI, designers have often shown insecurity and imposter syndrome. There are probably many reasons for this. First, before ~2010 design wasn't valued by the tech industry in the way it is today. Second, the people attracted to working in the field of design are often very open to new ideas and have high empathy. Third, there is no "one path" to working as a designer and designer backgrounds are often pretty random.
Ironically, despite the insecurity + imposter syndrome so many designers feel, design is more important than ever. I truly believe this. And yes, I have an incentive to believe this. But just think about it... the logic couldn't be more clear. More design is entering the world, the attention economy is real and therefore creativity / design / point of view is how you will stand out. Your brand, marketing, product design, moments of delight and overall customer journey must be excellent. Some companies already get this and are fighting wild battles over design talent. Other companies are still figuring it out. Everyone will get there and it will be obvious in retrospect.
This isn't a new trend with AI. It is a trend that we've seen over the last decade. Designers used to complain about not having a seat at the table. Now designers have a seat at the table. And many of the businesses I speak with are pulling from their design bench when looking for new leaders for their business... they know that design thinking and the design process is what they need to adopt everywhere to win.
I'm not saying that every stakeholder gets it. But so many are trying to learn right now. Designers need to do more than create great work, they have to spend a lot more effort educating.
Showing work can also trigger anxiety. Sometimes the best solution to a design challenge is the first thing you think of. And other times you have to explore for quite a long time to come up with something great. Inputs to a design process might include things that feel like traditional office work and are easy to point to... reading docs, talking with teammates, formal research, etc. Inputs might also include a walk in the park, an interesting dream you had the night before, a good song you listened to on the radio during your commute, a painting from the 1800's or all sorts of other cultural / emotional input.
In summary, I've never been more confident in the role of design and impact design can have. I wish designers felt the same confidence. This is the moment to be more bold, to take more creative risk, to double down on the power of design. Everyone is on their own journey, and there are lots of fascinating ways to move through life, so if Gal is serious about "quitting design" then I wish him the best in his adventures ahead. But I hope if others follow they do it because there are other things they are so excited about spending time on vs fear of AI.
It’s over. I’m quitting design.
A client of mine just created a logo with Fable 5, and the result left me speechless.
It understood the brand story, values, audience, strategy, and turned all of it into a smart, minimal symbol. A genuinely brilliant concept. The kind of idea that captures everything at once. Something I honestly don’t think I would have come up with myself.
And it didn’t just nail the idea. It executed the design pixel-perfectly.
So I raise the white flag.
My skepticism about AI’s ability to do great design is officially gone.
There, I said it:
AI beat me at design.
Now that AI finally took my job, I can peacefully quit and dedicate my life to studying the only thing it may never achieve: human consciousness and the pathways to God.
Good luck everyone.