Product design and AI

AI is potentially the biggest change to computing since the internet. However, its broad potential scope makes it hard to predict specific impacts to our lives and work.

For product design in particular, AI will influence both the products we design and the way we design them. Through my own initial explorations I’ve started to refine what I think those changes will be.

What is design?

First, it’s helpful to clarify what design really is. My definition is that “design is decision-making with visual aids.”

The design process should start by identifying a decision that needs to be made–for instance, what problem to solve, how to solve it, or what to do next–and finish with a decision that all stakeholders understand. Sometimes it can help to initially define that decision in terms of “goals”, but you should still recognize that the end result of the work will be a decision from among options.

In between those two points is the process of creating and evaluating your options. This is the “messy middle”, the uncomfortable space of not knowing…and the reason most designers have jobs.

That’s because this is really hard for most people. Working through lots of ideas is admitting that you don’t know the answer, and you may not know when or even if you will.

Designers have set up lots of processes and structures to make this easier, but it remains a lot of work and deeply uncomfortable for many.

So there are three main parts of the design process:

1) Deciding what you want
2) Creating options
3) Choosing the one(s) you like best.

(This is, perhaps not surprisingly, the same general approach that AI models use to design themselves.)

How can AI be used for design?

The new LLM-powered AI models are fantastic at the second part, creating options. They can very quickly express in text, images, and sound a variety of different solutions for a problem. The constraints of discomfort and exhaustion that humans experience in this process are non-factors for AIs, and they are tens or hundreds of times faster at creation.

So for a typical design project, where you might normally create 2 or 3 options, now you could create 10-15 AI-assisted variations. AI can help with brainstorming differentiated designs, and even create them visually.

Whenever I’m asked how many designers I need for a project, I always answer “as many as we can get.” Every project benefits from more ideas, more perspectives, more diversity, and more options. AI promises to multiply our design options as much as we want.

AI also extends a designer’s capabilities further than before. One of the first powers unlocked by LLMs was writing code. A designer who previously would have stopped at a static Figma design can now make a working prototype for almost any platform. I expect that “design” will come to mean “design and prototyping” in short order.

Another extension is toward customer research. There’s no substitute for actually talking to customers (the pain is the point!), but AI is an efficient tool for researching markets, exploring customer personas, scheduling interviews, and summarizing interview transcripts. It can streamline all of the tasks that surround the actual conversation with a customer.

What new things can we design?

Just as with the metaverse, crypto, and other trends before it, every company today is fashioning itself an “AI” company. Some of these companies are truly centered around LLMs and machine learning; others are simply hopping aboard the hype train.

At first I compared AI to the smartphone revolution. Smartphones allowed you to do the same things you did on a desktop, from anywhere in the world. But that’s an incomplete comparison, because there are new things you can do with AI that weren’t possible before.

Imagine if you learned that a new color had just been invented, one never before seen on the color spectrum by human eyes. Or that someone had figured out how to add another dimension to screens (without clumsy goggles). It would change the way we interact with everything. AI unlocks new interactions in the same way.

I’m most excited about the new interface potential. For the first time, truly non-deterministic interfaces are possible. People won’t have to choose from limited options, or constrain their requests to a particular structure. Anything you can say, you can ask for; and a computer can respond with whatever answer format is best.

Imagine an interface that customizes itself for every interaction–new buttons, different layouts, custom graphics. Or one that seamlessly connects speech, touch, and keyboard input with audio, visual, and haptic output. Because the new AI techniques can understand language and visual input, these interfaces are now possible.

What can’t AIs do?

Despite all these capabilities, AIs by definition can’t tell you what you want, or what you like best–the first and third steps of the design process. And that’s why current AI tools still require careful “prompting”, and have to wait for your response to know if what they created was useful.

So it’s likely that even with future AI tools, the design process will require careful human crafting of the goals and requirements of a desired solution. This is the task of AI “alignment”, a field that extends from basic AI tools up to potential superintelligent AGI and ASI systems.

In traditional product development, this is often the role of the “PRD”–a product requirements document. A well-written PRD can be a helpful resource, while a poorly-written one is a problematic distraction. In the same way, an AI prompt that is carefully considered, crafted, and staged will result in much better outcomes than a brief, vague one. Making the most of multimodal inputs (text, images, speech) can also improve the results. AI can help you draft all of these things…but it can’t tell you what you want.

AIs will also never know whether what they’ve created meets human expectations without checking with the humans again. I expect that remote, asynchronous customer testing platforms like UserTesting and Maze will someday connect with AIs to automate individual tests, but when all that feedback is in (and processed), someone will still have to make the decision about which option is best for the product. Data can guide, but shouldn’t decide–especially while alignment is an unsolved problem.

What should designers do?

Most of my design colleagues feel a mixture of excited and terrified by the advances in AI. I’m the same.

In one potential future, AI assists us in crafting more beautiful and effective designs than we ever could have before. We could solve seemingly unsolvable problems and bring incredible experiences to the world.

In another future, hard-working designers are replaced by tireless AIs, just as elevator operators were by automated lifts. The AIs expand beyond their call-and-response behavior to initiate projects and evaluate solutions.

I think both are possible. Given the exponential progress in AI technology, I would expect AIs to become ever more capable, and eventually surpass human ability in most design skills. I can see enough similarities to machine learning in my own design experience (identifying patterns, connecting stories, “trusting my gut”) that I believe AIs will eventually be able to replicate most of my traditional design process.

At the same time, people who learn to work well alongside AIs will be able to accomplish amazing things. They will guide AIs toward solutions that benefit themselves and the world, and fully express their own creative desires.

In an AI-infused world, a “designer” will continue to be someone who makes decisions about what they want and what they like. People who learn to clearly express their desires and their opinions will thrive. And the more they understand and communicate the needs of others, the more popular their creations will be.

Product designers should focus on the most human, most emotional, most opinionated parts of the design process to succeed in a world with AI. They should learn to deeply empathize with customers, to express their desires in creative and beautiful ways, and to develop their unique sense of style and taste.

Steve Jobs used to highlight how having poets and musicians on the Macintosh team made that product better. Those same talents will be valuable in the next generation of design careers. Sure, AIs can write songs and poems–but they don’t know what to write them about, and they don’t know if they’re any good.

AIs can design products, but humans will need to tell them what they want. That’s design.

Other people’s problems

I’ve struggled to express why I don’t get too into dramatic books, movies, or (especially) video games despite admiring the craft, but this from a rare Bill Watterson interview is a pretty close approximation:

I’m shockingly ill-read. I’m not proud of this, but when faced with a work of fiction–a book, a movie, or anything–I tend to think, “You know, I’ve got problems of my own.”

Somehow as my own life and work got more complicated, my tolerance for drama in my free time has diminished. Still a sucker for comedy though.

Not sure how that exactly squares with my last post though. See, complicated!

Fiction as a way to experience reality

It is a common conception that people come to fiction, especially the speculative, to escape reality. And that is indeed one of the purposes it can serve. Another is that conversely to escaping, people come to fiction to encounter or experience reality…reality has different facets, different windows, like eyes, that reveal different vistas. – Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki

Related:

Dystopian fiction is when you take things that happen in real life to marginalized populations and apply them to people with privilege. – @Hugo_Book_Club

On face computers

Given my history with face computers, every time a new one launches people ask me what I think about it. This time it’s Apple’s turn to try to make face computers happen.

I thought I’d write up a few of the things I learned in my Glass experience that apply to anyone doing this:

  • People really, really care about how they look. Especially how their face looks. If you wear eyeglasses, think about how many pairs you tried on the last time you got new ones. Then imagine the glasses store had only one style available.
  • Plus, when something covers your eyes, it’s hard to see what you look like to others. When you find out later, it’s often unpleasant.
  • Speaking of eyeglasses, over 50% of the world’s population already wears them. Especially the older, richer people. Are you replacing those glasses? If not, how will you work with them? Most face computer designers forget about or willfully ignore this, perhaps because they’re young people with young eyes.
  • Face computers are often pitched as the replacement for phones. But people love their phones! So far every new type of wearable device has only made phones more important (for sync, setup, handoff, etc), not less.
  • And the business case for mass-market face computers depends on them replacing mobile phones. If you aren’t replacing a phone, you’re an accessory, a productivity device, or an entertainment device. Game consoles are a $20-50B market; laptops ~$150B; phones are >$500B. That’s why Glass focused on a highly mobile device rather than an immersive, more stationary one; it’s a completely different market.
  • Comfort is only slightly behind fashion in priority. Weight especially matters. Every additional gram makes the experience worse; anything over 50 grams makes it time-limited. You can play some tricks by shifting weight rearward off the face to the ears (as we did with the battery on Glass) but that buys you only a bit more.
  • The critical experience point is not using the device, but charging it. Any charging friction at all makes you have to think about whether and when you’ll need to use this device again. If that time is not in the next few hours, most devices won’t get charged–and they’ll be dead when you next think to use them.
  • Business uses change a lot of these equations. If it helps you do your job, people will use (and charge) devices far more willingly. Glass eventually pivoted to enterprise and found more success there.
  • “The killer app for glasses…is sight!” My colleague Ricardo Prada expressed this once in a brainstorm and it crystalized better than anything else what features, constraints, and use cases were going to be most important for Glass. Does it help you see more about the real world? Then it has a chance. If it’s trying to replace the real world, it’s much more challenging.

I still believe that the glasses we already wear (to help us see) can and will do more for us. I don’t believe people will make any compromises to how they look or feel in order to have those improvements. Unfortunately I expect this will limit the appeal of face computers to niche (or business) purposes for the foreseeable future.

I’d love to be wrong about this. Apple in particular has a history of succeeding where others have failed, and I fully realize I’m opening up myself to a “less space than a Nomad” moment. But this area has fundamental human physical and social challenges, and I haven’t seen any device yet that is up to that task.

When technology advances to the point where lots of face computer styles are possible at 50 grams or less, I think things will get interesting again.

Volcano power!

A new approach to geothermal power generation posits that we might solve our green power needs and defuse the civilization-ending Yellowstone supervolcano at the same time.

Pick a crank, any crank

There have been many attempts to quantify the ideal crankarm length for cyclists of different heights. At just under 6’7″ (2.0m) I’ve been particularly interested in this subject. I’ve ridden cranks from 170-200mm on various bikes over time, and broken several sets in the name of experimenting.

This CyclingTips article collects some of the research highlights, including one from 2002 which establishes that “mechanical power output and pedal speed, a marker for muscle shortening velocity, are the main determinants of metabolic cost during submaximal cycling”.

In layman’s terms, that means that longer cranks at a lower cadence will have the same cost as shorter cranks at a higher one. This was confirmed in 2017 by a study that found that crank length didn’t alter metabolic cost, but cautioned that too-long sets could cause joint issues.

So in the end, as the CyclingTips article suggests, cyclists can feel free to choose a crank length based on what feels best to them. For me, that’s 195-200mm for hilly road rides to help with low-cadence torque; 180mm on the rollers for seated spinning; and somewhere in between for flat roads and off-road riding (where pedal strikes are a concern). Anything shorter–and even 180s when standing–feels like I’m Homer Simpson riding the clown bike.

Finding cranks outside the 170-175mm range is still challenging and expensive, but worth hunting down a pair to try, especially if you’re on the extreme end of the height spectrum.

Cosmic clock

For years I’ve had a memory of a video showing the rise and fall of a city, over hundreds of years, from the top of a nearby hill. In particular I remembered being stunned by the way an entire civilization would appear like a blip, to an observer with a much longer timespan.

I’ve searched for a long time and finally found it; a clip called Cosmic Clock by Al Jarnow, originally shown on 3-2-1 Contact:

In my mind it was a rock on the hill; looks like it was a kid with a stopwatch instead. Thanks to Jason Kottke for the link!

Waking up

I think we didn’t evolve sleep, we evolved wakefulness – Paul Shaw

Happiness is what you make it

While negative events can cause ongoing unhappiness, “hoping for happiness from positive events appears misplaced.“. Oof.

On the plus side, it might be freeing to understand that waiting for that promotion/relationship/event won’t make a difference to your happiness. Embrace who you are and what you have today.

Reduce emissions, save a life

A new study estimates the mortality cost of our carbon emissions.

From The Guardian:

For every 4,434 metric tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere beyond the 2020 rate of emissions, one person globally will die prematurely from the increased temperature. This additional CO2 is equivalent to the current lifetime emissions of 3.5 Americans…

While it takes just 3.5 Americans to create enough emissions in a lifetime to kill one person, it would take 25 Brazilians or 146 Nigerians to do the same, the paper found.

While emissions are still something best addressed by government policy and economic incentives, and “carbon footprint” is a concept popularized by BP to shift blame to individuals, understanding the mortality cost grounds even individual decisions (including voting) with the opportunity to save lives.