We’re at a strange point in tech history. AI is suddenly everywhere — creating art, writing emails, generating designs, even mimicking voices. But Episode 12 of Experience Designed hits at a deeper, more unnerving reality: while AI is powering ahead, are we thinking clearly about where it should go?

AI Loves Art — Because It’s Safe?

Let’s face it: most of the mainstream AI output we see today is artistic — from surreal generative portraits to dreamy poems and lo-fi beats. It’s easy to dismiss this as novelty, but maybe there’s more to it. Art is low-risk. A failed AI painting is just a weird image. A failed AI doctor, on the other hand, could cost someone their life.

While tech developers are actively trying to push AI into high-stakes professions, these roles are often difficult even for highly experienced humans. The margin for error is slim, and the consequences of failure are severe. That’s likely why we see AI proliferating in creative industries — they’re viewed as safe, low-consequence zones. Even if AI makes mistakes, they can be shrugged off as long as the output is “good enough” to satisfy most people.

But here’s the catch: this mindset — that creative errors don’t matter — might be quietly shaping stakeholder expectations in harmful ways. If we keep dismissing the long-term impact of “small” creative failures, we may end up with products and experiences that lack depth, originality, or emotional resonance.

UX vs Business: Who’s Actually Winning?

This episode raises a critical point: business models shape user experience — and sometimes, they destroy it.

Take a subscription app that suddenly starts injecting ads. That’s not just a business tweak — it’s a betrayal of user trust. These kinds of decisions, often made in pursuit of quick revenue, end up undermining usability and long-term loyalty.

UX isn’t just about crafting beautiful interfaces; it’s also about shaping what content users interact with and how they interact with it. But as AI promises faster, cheaper output, are businesses quietly pushing UX out of the room — treating it as a luxury instead of a necessity?

Can You Automate Taste?

Tools like Lovable are pushing boundaries by generating not just user interfaces, but entire functioning applications. That’s incredibly exciting — it speeds up development, lowers the barrier to entry, and enables rapid prototyping like never before.

But while AI can handle structure, layout, and even certain aesthetic decisions, there’s still a gap when it comes to taste — the thoughtful curation of visual and interaction choices that suit a specific audience and purpose. AI can replicate trends and apply popular styles, but it may not always understand the why behind those choices. That's where human designers still bring irreplaceable value.

These tools also give stakeholders more control over design, which can be empowering. However, without a trained eye, there’s a risk that visual choices might not align with user needs or product goals. Designers are uniquely equipped to bridge that gap — ensuring that aesthetics aren’t just pleasing, but purposeful.

Rather than seeing AI as a replacement, it’s more useful to view it as a powerful collaborator. One that still needs human guidance to ensure the experience feels just right.

The Job Market’s Shifting (and So Are the Entry Points)

As AI begins to automate more of the routine tasks in UX — wireframing, testing, even generating copy — the future of entry-level roles starts to look uncertain. Automation brings undeniable efficiency, but it also threatens the very foundation where many designers build their skills: the hands-on, iterative learning that happens in those early career stages.

We may be heading toward a world where using AI becomes second nature — as effortless as browsing the internet. But if we stop questioning why things are designed a certain way, what happens to innovation? If design becomes something we merely prompt, rather than practice, will we lose the curiosity that drives meaningful user experiences?

There’s also a paradox at play: AI is being used to design intuitive experiences, yet the very people best equipped to make things intuitive — UX designers — are being pushed out of the process. Can we truly create human-centered, intuitive AI products without the people who’ve spent their careers advocating for users?

UX Is Not Just Efficiency — It’s Empathy

UX has never been about cranking out screens fast. It’s about balancing what’s best for users with what the business needs. If we prioritize speed over insight, aesthetics over usability, we risk creating beautiful tools that fall short of being truly usable..

Ironically, most AI projects fail not because they lack capability but because they ignore what users actually want. A little more UX at the start could have saved a lot of money (and face) in the end.

The Blind Leading the Blind?

If AI is trained on biased or poorly designed data and then used to create more UX decisions, are we just looping flawed logic? It’s like the blind leading the blind, with no pause for reflection.

And the scariest part? No one might notice until it’s too late.

It’s Better to Be Late and Loved Than First and Forgotten

One quote from the episode stuck: “It’s better to be late to market and know what exactly works than to be early and fail.”

That’s UX in a nutshell. It’s not just about function — it’s about feel. That emotional resonance with a product, that sense of “this just works.” But how do you design that if what you're creating doesn’t exist yet? That’s the job of a designer — to imagine the feeling, then build toward it.

And for now, that’s something AI still needs our help to do.

Have thoughts on AI and UX?
Let’s talk. I’d love to hear how you see this shift, especially if you’re working at the intersection of design and AI.