I have seen this as well, except the UI ends up all looking similar, because the harness prompt and training data doesn’t change much

The average becomes the same shade of gray. Familiarity breeds contempt. New types of design will emerge that are expensive to copy, because differentiation drives competition

Which is perfectly adequate for 95% of applications. Hell, it’d probably improve most applications if they adopted some proven shade of gray.

Why do people feel that each and every tool they use needs its own unique look and feel? And why are people willing to pay more for that? In some cases, sure. For my smart sprinkler app.. I don’t give a damn if it looks like 1000 other apps.

I’d actually prefer if all of them looked and worked the same, especially useful if you have elderly family members you need to teach how to use app for XYZ. all government websites (especially functional ones that citizens use to do something on) for instance should be exactly the same

Yeah, agreed. And realistically they are correct. I’d argue that “good enough” is how most things are done.

Especially if you’re working on an established product with an existing design system. New features / layouts are really easy now.

These tools don’t solve big design problems, but they do resolve all the little design decisions often left up to devs at implementation time.

In those cases you’ve seen firsthand, who is actually using Claude design (or similar tools) to create the good enough design?

The important point is that 2 years ago these AI tools were like 20% percentile for UX designers, today it is as good as a junior or normal UI UX Developer, 2 years from now it will be in 90th percentile, etc

But again: who is actually using/commanding the tool to create the designs?

Someone who is wearing more hats than they used to.

And then in 2 years after what, what will happen?