One-off chats with a human designer are a terrible way to end up with a great design! Isn’t the classic joke that the client stands over your shoulder, telling you to “make the logo bigger” and “move the button to the right” and “change the shade of blue”? One subtext of this joke is that this changes are not actually improving the design in any real way! If the designer is any good, making the logo bigger won’t actually move the needle.

Designers should do what AI’s architecture prevents it from doing I realize not all reader of this blog are technical, but I highly recommend to all learning about LLM architecture. Perhaps the first breath of fresh air that I experienced during the onslaught of AI news was after diving into how LLMs work. All of a sudden, so many questions and ponderings about that mysterious thinking silicon became so much clearer. Because LLMs aren’t magic; they’re algorithms.

'impressionist painting' vs 'blueprints'. AI nails what's vibes-based, but struggles with the tight constraints of geometric exactitude

'abstract dark, techie visuals' vs 'vector logo for quantum computing computing company called 'Superposition Technologies''. Again, AI is good with the vibey, worse with geometric precision

Focus on what is complex. Focus on what is interdisciplinary. Focus on what is novel. Focus on what is outside the training data.