coyleandrew

Thank you for pointing this out! I wrote the article, and that was exactly the point I was trying to make. I agree with most comments in this thread, but they're addressing a different issue. I assume they didn’t read the article in full. There’s a common frustration with designers who create superficial user interfaces—visually attractive at first glance, but offering little to the user. There's a good article on this topic called, "The dribbblisation of design."

Good design isn’t about making things pretty. It’s about making things make sense. Visual design is just one piece of that puzzle.

To reduce a designer’s role to 'making it look nice' is a fundamental misunderstanding of the craft. The shape of the interface reflects the thought behind it—ideally rooted in a deep understanding of the user’s context, goals, and jobs-to-be-done.

Thank you for reading the article!

The notion that AGI’s rise will stifle creativity is, in itself, a misreading of history. Technology has always been a force that enhances human ingenuity. The printing press didn’t kill creativity; it multiplied it. The rise of personal computers didn’t make writers obsolete; it created entire new industries. AGI is simply the next chapter in this narrative, enabling creativity on a scale never before possible.

Rather than fearing the loss of traditional employment, we should embrace the explosion of new roles that AGI will make possible.