51–60 of 104 posts
Do people design UIs first? I just basically define what I need in a UI in plain text when the prototype is built. I extract the repeating units, then add design to it.
If you're tech first, you do what you do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you pick an example that does not have AI as a competitor? If people could generate an infinite variety of chairs in a few seconds, than yes, my sharing would be discouraged.
I can't draw. I'm learning to draw. I really don't give a flying toss if AI can generate pencil drawings of my loved ones. They'll know I made the effort myself.
Your point is thin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't draw. I'm learning to draw. I really don't give a flying toss if AI can generate pencil drawings of my loved ones. They'll know I made the effort myself.
Why would you use an example that limits sharing to loved ones? Your point is thin.
The README is unnerving. Do people really see the Claude-salesman style of writing as something normal? On the other hand, I should be thanking Anthropic for making it so easy to spot, they might have done this intentionally.
In certain circles, yeah. It's bad powerpoint writing by ambitious but dull mid-level managers, memeified. There's a lot of it out there.
If you were to distill that kind of copy into an AI model and then reproduce it with just a touch of uncanny valley, yup. 100% that's what it is.
The inevitable outcome here is that designed materials become so generic and infinitely produceable that they become worthless background noise. We are well on the way to that path. For almost all materials the only value of getting a seriously produced work of design (i.e., the "make me a magazine-style pitch deck for our seed round" this design engine mentions) is a signaling function that some combination of effor…
I’m glad people will have to evaluate the substance of the deck rather than using a cheap heuristic like how visually appealing the presentation is. I understand there tends to be a correlation between visual appeal and effort, and correlation between effort and merit, but correlation is notoriously flawed. Flawed models can be useful, but only if one qualifies their use sufficiently. I don’t think most people who us…
The inevitable outcome here is that designed materials become so generic and infinitely produceable that they become worthless background noise. We are well on the way to that path. For almost all materials the only value of getting a seriously produced work of design (i.e., the "make me a magazine-style pitch deck for our seed round" this design engine mentions) is a signaling function that some combination of effor…
Hopefully. The process has taken way too long. Compare to something similar like PowerPoint animations. Fun the first time you see them, and then annoying after that.
The best possible side effect of the cost of producing content dropping to zero would be more effort spent honing a message into its most concentrated form.
We have AI driving a usual mix of storybook, pencil, figma, playwright, tailwind/react, per-pr staging servers, etc, and a few skill files on using these. PRs include autogenerated storybook and intool screenshots, and links to staging servers.
Except... Everyone works quite differently in how they flow through this. Likewise, it's unclear how valuable each pieces still is, and when. Our developers are doing more ownership now, which is shifting this too.
Are folks switching to Claude Design? Some super skills imports? Etc..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right in that our expertise can see how this was not generated with the same kind of thoughtfulness that we might apply. But you're wrong in implying (if you are) that it's not valuable to be impressive to a non-expert.
Or isn't it? You are one step away from deploying superficially impressive things, without understanding what is lacking.
To the non-expert, probably acceptable, even impressive.