[BSOhealth]

The current product _must_ simply be a funding mechanism for whatever AI solution will ultimately define them. The idea that we’ll continue to have rigidly defined design mockups and specification seems relatively naive compared to generative UX defined by the user and their interaction preferences.

[xwolfi]

Imagine in that future world you describe, how immensely valuable a human artist will be: originality, wit, brilliance, their design will completely conquer any competitor generating the slop you dream of.

[grapesodaaaaa]

Agreed. I do still worry that this will upend the status quo. As with any ecosystem: slow changes are fine, but fast changes can be catastrophic.

I’ve worked with many people over the years who are good enough at their job, but will be replaced by AI (management’s choice, not mine). I’m probably one of those people as a mediocre engineer who prioritized family over career.

I have some backup plans, but it’s still tough and going to affect lots of people.

[Gracana]

That will always be valuable, but I don’t think that’s what most designers are doing. If AI can copy flat design and Corporate Memphis style, it’ll compete just fine with the average designer.

[entropsilk]

We must live in different realities because most design has almost no creativity or originality at all. "Good design" means the website/design looks exactly the same as everything else.

We have the tools to do anything imaginable with film and video but the top box office films right now in the US are all completely derivative, non-creative human slop.

"Good design" is so trivial to do with generative AI.

We hardly live in 1910 Paris with all the cool people drinking absinthe in between cranking out all these artistic masterpieces.

[simgt]

As much as a skilled potter making fancy coffee cups conquers IKEA. Most people don't care about craftsmanship, and our economy nudges everyone towards convenient slop.