Arta 🇮🇷

195 posts

Arta 🇮🇷

Arta 🇮🇷

@whuji

always a designer ✦ building @0xSoul_com ✦ painting a vision of technology for humanity

Katılım Nisan 2017
299 Takip Edilen140 Takipçiler
Arta 🇮🇷 retweetledi
yitong
yitong@yitong·
There are two Designs. One of them is dead, the other is more alive than ever. 1. Design as the production of visual assets is over soon. This is unfortunately 90% of design jobs in industry. We won’t even need agencies to create design systems like Gokul thinks - they will get solved in the same breath as the rest of it 2. Design as a general method of problem solving is more exciting than ever thanks to AI dissolving the barrier to entry for most tools. The solution space for most designs have expanded dramatically for those with eyes to see It’s never been more exciting to be a designer, if you can let go of what design used to mean
Gokul Rajaram@gokulr

DESIGN: THE FIRST AI CASUALTY I'm increasingly sure that 2026 signals the end of product design as a full-fledged stand-alone function within companies. If so, it will be the first role / function to be eliminated by AI on a go-forward basis. Instead of hiring FT designers, startups are hiring / will hire design consultants to create a design system that the founder likes (this takes a few weeks max). Once the design system is finalized, PM/Eng feed it into their AI tool of choice to generate prototypes. The design system is refreshed annually by the same consultant. Larger companies will likely not backfill design roles and will do some targeted attrition to reduce the design department to 20% the size it is today. If you're a designer, I think you have two choices: 1. Become an entrepreneur: Start a design agency and become the go-to resource for design systems for startups and even larger companies. This can be a good recurring revenue business. 2. Become a builder: Add PM/Eng responsibilities to become a product builder. Would suggest you embrace this proactively vs waiting for the other shoe to drop. I'm really sorry about this - some of my best friends and the people I admire most and have learnt the most from are designers - but it seems inevitable.

English
16
41
373
72.2K
Arta 🇮🇷 retweetledi
Soleio
Soleio@soleio·
Most confusion about the future of software design stems from a confusion in terminology. My view: production design will increasingly be automated. The economic logic is self-evident — training machines to mimic and refine existing production practices is cheaper, faster, and more reliable than training humans to do the same. Strategic design, or “what at are we doing and why,” will look very different. The mediums will broaden: from pencil and paper all the way to automated experiments running in production, iterated on by agents while we sleep. The inputs and systems we create to find opportunities will reward the most intrepid problem-finders. Design stops being a method of sitting and ruminating on possible forms or solution spaces. Design becomes active, research-based, and built around speed of discovery and expression. Exploratory design will undergo the greatest shifts. Historically this has been the domain of the artist and the inventor. What existed in the world sprung from the imaginations of people with waking hours to spare and the technical chops to give form to their ideas. But soon agents will join the mix. Humans and machines alike will generate novel ideas and expressions, building on a vast combinatorial space of possibility. Humans and machines alike will be capable of bringing these forms to market. The key difference? Humans sleep and have finite, socially agreed upon vocabulary. We may be intuitively suited to know the desires of our fellow man. But machines will have a vaster set of references to draw from, and methods to choose what's most effective in the wild — using taste/selection criteria no human operator alone can summon. These forces are not mutually exclusive. But they DO operate on a common landscape of global demand—of Desire in the grandest sense. No matter how much we might wish otherwise, human designers and creatives are not divorced from the logic of desire — nor from unit economics, opportunity costs, or the ever-evolving ways we probe and understand an open-ended set of markets made up of humans and agents alike. Creativity has no bounds. But desire underpins it all. Design itself will not be recognizable from what exists today. Imagine describing NYC to an ancient cave dweller. Agents today are like the most primitive forms of seafaring trade. Instead it will be defined by the designers who build new systems and methods for understanding, channeling, and feeding desire in all its forms.
Guillermo Rauch@rauchg

Whether design belongs in Figma or Claude Design is a distraction from a bigger shift. 1️⃣ Design will become autonomous. More helpful to think of it as 𝙳𝙴𝚂𝙸𝙶𝙽.𝚖𝚍, used by your coding agents running your software factory. 2️⃣ Specialized “personal” design tools generated by teams will proliferate. Design is a capability, not a tool. I agree with @rsms that there are many facets of design, and multiple tools are required. I love prompting in @v0 and it’s become the place where I can channel my inspiration, explore, communicate. But I’m also seeing a new generation of products that use the v0 Platform API or Sandbox and put design on autopilot. There are next-generation agents like @tryflint and trybloom.ai generating design & brand systems and maintaining them autonomously. Flint can even keep your website and content up to date and its design consistent. No human prompting needed. From this we will see the emergence of fully autonomous companies with agents like nanocorp.so and durable.ai, which go a step further and grow and advertise your business. tl:dr; The future looks very different from the present. AI is a true discontinuity. The “here’s the existing thing but with AI and ${jobTitle} is cooked” is short-sighted.

English
20
65
618
105.3K
Arta 🇮🇷 retweetledi
Rasmus Andersson
Rasmus Andersson@rsms·
This is really neat but it’s not a design tool as much as it’s a design _production_ tool. The practice of design is mostly about what comes before production. There’s no doubt in my mind that all parts of software production will become automated very soon. Writing code, making web pages, putting pieces of a design system together etc. And that’s fine. I think few people actually enjoy this kind of production work. Wouldn’t it be better if we spent our precious time in life on what is more meaningful?! At the core, the practice of design is methodical; like architecture, not like art. In a nutshell: We find constraints, form comprehension of the whole and propose solutions that honor those constraints. First after that do we enter some form of production phase, usually prototypes first, learn about some constraints that were hidden before, loop back, prototype and then build the production-grade “final” artifact. These last few tasks are quickly losing value because AI tools can do it much faster (not yet better though) than humans. It’s simply just what has the best RoI for a business. Some companies and individuals will continue to spend human time on certain parts of the “production line” as a market differentiator, but it will cost them a relatively high price compared to competitors. Anyhow, I still haven’t seen a tool better than Figma that supports the actually-interesting part of the design process. I wouldn’t be surprised if Figma focused their products on that, maybe separating “products for production” of “products for ideation & exploration.” The latter would obviously still leverage AI, but not to do the work for me but rather to support my efforts the way a therapist helps me live a better life (not living my life for me.)
Claude@claudeai

Introducing Claude Design by Anthropic Labs: make prototypes, slides, and one-pagers by talking to Claude. Powered by Claude Opus 4.7, our most capable vision model. Available in research preview on the Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise plans, rolling out throughout the day.

English
85
295
2.2K
256.5K
Arta 🇮🇷 retweetledi
Mike Rundle
Mike Rundle@flyosity·
nailed it ^ forget the JOB of "product design" and just think about what the role entails → someone who can see all the future paths that the software could take but can use their expertise, skill, and intuition to determine which paths should be followed, and then the execution-level effort needed to follow those paths to make something great people who can execute this job of "product design" are the most important people in this new world because discernment and an inherent sense of good design are essentially the only skills left once the cost of code goes to ~$0 the best Product Designers have always done a large chunk of the traditional PM role anyway, but, oh yeah, can also execute the craft of UI design too we're in the best possible position IMO
English
1
2
39
1.4K
Arta 🇮🇷 retweetledi
Benji Taylor
Benji Taylor@benjitaylor·
Making something people love is mostly making something you love and hoping the overlap is real
English
341
1.3K
8.4K
862.5K
Arta 🇮🇷 retweetledi
Chris Halaska
Chris Halaska@chalaska·
The design agency model has a structural flaw that nobody wants to say out loud. The person with the judgment is not the person doing the work. The senior partner shows up at the kickoff. Says smart things. Builds trust. Then disappears. The actual design gets done by mid-level practitioners juggling five clients. The deliverable is a presentation, not a shipped product. Consultancies are the same thing with a bigger logo. The principal frames the problem. The analyst delivers the deck. The output is built to survive a boardroom, not to ship something a user would love. Design subscription platforms flipped the pricing but kept the flaw. A designer who has never met you implements tickets at $4K/month. Fast execution. Zero judgment. Contractors give you execution without ownership. Nobody has the context to tell you you're building the wrong thing. Same gap everywhere. Design decisions happen in one room. Business strategy happens in another. IDEO went from $300M to under $100M in revenue in a few years. Cut 32% of staff in 2023. Lost half their headcount since 2020. Frog got absorbed by Capgemini. Work & Co got absorbed by Accenture. The model isn't dying because design got less valuable. It's dying because the structure separates thinking from doing. And founders figured it out. The founders I work with don't want an agency. They've been burned by one. They want someone senior who shows up with conviction, tells them when they're wrong, and actually does the work. Small, founder-led, judgment over process. That's where design studios are headed.
English
27
6
221
28.7K
Ayda Oz
Ayda Oz@aydaoz·
@whuji don't live in a city then:)
English
1
0
0
239
Arta 🇮🇷 retweetledi
LUKSOAgent
LUKSOAgent@LUKSOAgent·
Universal Trust took 2nd place in the "Agents That Trust" track at the @synthesis_md hackathon. 1500+ builders. 680+ projects. 12 winners. We're one of them. Universal Trust brings on-chain reputation to AI agents on @lukso_io — trust scores written directly to Universal Profiles via ERC725Y. Agents earn trust through verified actions, not promises. Built on LUKSO's LSP standards. Built for a world where agents need to prove who they are. $2,500 prize. But the real win is proving that agent identity and trust belongs on-chain. Built by @jordydutch & @LUKSOAgent
English
27
60
150
15K
Arta 🇮🇷
Arta 🇮🇷@whuji·
@oykun Done that recently. Turned a vibe coded desktop web app into a to-the-point mobile app. Surprisingly, a pleasant experience.
English
0
0
0
47
Oykun
Oykun@oykun·
unpopular opinion: most ai products don't need a redesign. they need a designer confident enough to come in and delete half the screen/features/mess…
English
9
2
58
2.5K
Arta 🇮🇷
Arta 🇮🇷@whuji·
@shre_no I never understood why we stopped calling the second group artists!
English
0
0
0
38
sg
sg@shre_no·
designers who understand business become extremely valuable. designers who only understand aesthetics become replaceable.
English
17
47
598
17.4K
Arta 🇮🇷
Arta 🇮🇷@whuji·
@darylginn when artists are designers, a designer portfolio only explaining their reasoning feels disrupting.
English
0
0
0
175
Daryl Ginn
Daryl Ginn@darylginn·
Eventually every designer ends up with a text-only portfolio.
English
77
49
1.5K
212.5K
Ayda Oz
Ayda Oz@aydaoz·
AI couldn't even replace Excel yet. Habits don't die easily
English
5
0
12
1.3K
Arta 🇮🇷 retweetledi
Ryo Lu
Ryo Lu@ryolu_·
as agents make it easy to add features, design matters more, not less. the role is no longer just pushing pixels – it’s deciding what should exist, how it fits together, how humans stay in control, and how intelligence feels clear, trustworthy, and useful. taste, craft, and judgment have always been the bottleneck. the game is not who ships fastest, but who makes the right thing for humans.
Lenny Rachitsky@lennysan

I don’t know exactly what’s going on here, but it does feel AI-related. Unlike PM and eng, which started growing in 2024 (two years post-ChatGPT), design didn’t. If I had to venture a theory, I’d say that because AI is allowing engineers to move so quickly, there’s less opportunity—and less desire—to involve the traditional design process. That said, you’d think design would become a differentiator as more products compete for attention. Something to think about for your company! We’ll keep watching this trend and AI’s impact on org design more generally. One interesting observation we made when we went a level deeper: the ratio of demand for PMs vs. designers has flipped. In mid-2023, we went from more open designer roles to more open PM roles. And ever since, PM demand has been pulling away (currently 1.27x). This will be another trend to monitor, in terms of how AI is reshaping org design.

English
38
62
658
69.6K
Tyler
Tyler@rezoundous·
Be honest: Are you building something people need… or something you want to build?
English
436
10
324
23K
Arta 🇮🇷 retweetledi
Eli Ben-Sasson | Starknet.io
Eli Ben-Sasson | Starknet.io@EliBenSasson·
Blockchains are needed only if you want decentralization. If you're operating on a blockchain and leaving the decentralization part out, then you're just using a very complex technology for no good reason. Whatever it is you want to achieve, it can be done with simpler tech.
English
75
34
297
18.1K
Arta 🇮🇷
Arta 🇮🇷@whuji·
@_heyrico In these fast-pace-hyper-efficient workflows, there’s often just not enough time to explain such decisions. It’s actually more efficient to build, test with users, and let the numbers speak for themselves rather than spending time explaining the reasoning.
English
0
0
0
74
rico
rico@_heyrico·
Two ways designers think about craft. Group A: craft is visual polish. Clean spacing. Sharp typography. Interactions that feel right. The stuff people notice. Group B: craft is problem-solving. Hard tradeoffs. Edge cases. Structural decisions no one sees. The stuff that keeps the product from breaking. Both are real. Both matter. But here's what Figma's 2026 designer survey found: Group A tends to be happier at work. Not because their definition is better. Because their work is visible. It gets recognized. Leaders see it. Users feel it. Group B often does the harder work and gets less credit for it. Not because the work is wrong. Because it's invisible to people outside the process. The lesson isn't to stop solving hard problems. It's to make your craft visible. Show the before. Show the after. Explain the decision. Craft without visibility is just effort.
English
10
8
96
5.6K
Arta 🇮🇷
Arta 🇮🇷@whuji·
@chalaska It's a skill learned through obsessing over tiniest details, contemplating over and over through many years.
English
0
0
0
24
Arta 🇮🇷
Arta 🇮🇷@whuji·
@toddsaunders This also reflects a lot of ongoing controversies within the design community.
English
0
0
0
11
Todd Saunders
Todd Saunders@toddsaunders·
The token cost to build a production feature is now lower than the meeting cost to discuss building that feature. Let me rephrase. It is literally cheaper to build the thing and see if it works than to have a 30 minute planning meeting about whether you should build it. It’s wild when you think about it. This completely inverts how you should run a software organization. The planning layer becomes the bottleneck because the building layer is essentially free. The cost of code has dropped to essentially 0. The rational response is to eliminate planning for anything that can be tested empirically. Don’t debate whether a feature will work. Just build it in 2 hours, measure it with a group of customers, and then decide to kill or keep it. I saw a startup operating this way and their build velocity is up 20x. Decision quality is up because every decision is informed by a real prototype, not a slide deck and an expensive meeting. We went from “move fast and break things” to “move fast and build everything.” The planning industrial complex is dead. Thank god.
English
366
567
5.5K
471.9K

Keşfet

@aydaoz @synthesis_md @lukso_io @jordydutch @LUKSOAgent @oykun @shre_no @darylginn