In the future they will come with their 'ready' solution, already 'working' and be even less receptive to look at design and architecture holistically. Just make it like that. And why do you need to spend X man hours? The thing is basically already done!

Keen to hear if anyone has had unconventional creative adventures with it.

Do you not pay for Claude?

However, designing in code is technology-first. One could argue that the purpose of design - to shape the artifacts for human purpose - is better done NOT starting with the strict rules of code. Pen and paper is still hard to beat, not for anything that looks nice, but for helping your mind forward.

I some times notice this. the LLM cant see past the interation so I have to think outside the box and say, what if we look at it from this perspective, and suddenly a new way of designing it comes into existance. Somes times I have to create a flow chart to get the LLM to see past its own progression steps.

That’s solves an issue I have with all POC - a really good approach

Written specifications are being reduced in favor of these working prototypes, and now there’s this extra cognitive burden of reading the code and trying to determine what were the intended changes, and what’s the slop that needs to be tossed aside.

We also have to figure out, should we take over this generated PR and make any needed changes? Or do we start over from scratch? There’s often a sense of friction either way.

There have been times where a bunch of unintended changes were generated and I took time to port them over on my reimplementation, and then later on it’s “oops! Sorry! We didn’t mean to change that.”

I get it’s empowering but it does take away from some of the joy I used to find in my work and replaced it with some headaches.

For me building a quick (not production quality) frontend demo in code was already often faster than getting the right interaction working in Figma. And it allowed to make it fully interactive so you can catch much more edge cases on the UX side.

Now with Claude Code it's even faster to build the throw away prototype. But not a huge difference since discussing with the users and thinking about how it should work is 80% of the time. Claude maybe halves the other 20% compared to quickly doing it yourself. Faster to first version, slower to iterate if it didn't fully get it.

Figma is still my preferred canvas. Figjam is still great for rough wireframes, flows, and agreeing on data models with my eng counterparts.

But Claude accelerates the divergent early stage 'exploration' work. Unfortunately we don't take the time to properly validate the concepts with customers. Again in the name of 'moving fast'. They will learn eventually I guess.

I'm getting off-topic. Claude is super helpful. As time passes I'm doing more and more work with it. But sometimes taking my design system and pushing pixels is genuinely faster when there is an obvious solution, opposed to ensuring Claude has all the right context to solve a relatively simple problem.

All depends on what I'm working on really.

I've worked with graphic designers, whether its 1 person on a team, or a group, or a division, and had the back and forth for years. I've also contracted with many graphic designers to polish my own applications as well as promotional materials. I've contracted with agencies, I know what a style guide looks like, a press kit, a design library shared between applications and departments needs to have.

Now it's not a full time job. Its 3 tabs for different user flows in the application.

And on the flip side, designers can also deploy software now that's good enough - (I feel like I can deploy more efficient software than an AI will initially suggest, and do things that stay on free tiers for far longer than anyone just going along with AI's suggestions.)

I think the ability to get to a working prototype faster is very empowering, even if some will be tempted to ship these incomplete ideas. Design and UX needs benefits greatly from being able to play with it, and experience the actual flows beyond just a storyboard and wireframes.

It's much harder to RL out design taste because it's not self-grounding, and human labelers have no real skin in the game, so this (having a human with a vested outcome in the process directing a model's work) is the best way to get LLMs better at design/"taste"/aesthetic judgment themselves. We were working on the same thing 7 months ago and then I realized that winning over designers to do this would be a huge uphill battle setting up an inevitable fall from grace later on.

What makes me most suspicious of Claude Design is that when you disconnect and reconnect later, it loses context and nags you that the product doesn't work like that. Bullshit. It's at best an anti-abuse/implementation detail (to keep you from launching 10 at once and coming back to them later) or product shortcoming that just so happens to be optimized for keeping you from continuing your design in better tools than theirs for the inevitable followups.

It's great for one shots and it makes sense when you're trying to build a vertical product development stack like Anthropic but I'm disappointed it feels more like a tool optimized for keeping you in their product than for what you're working on. If a company other than Anthropic had shipped this - it's not that hard to build a visual self-eval loop, just use Chrome Devtools Protocol to run headless chrome and take screenshots -> feed into a judge LLM for feedback -> continue - I don't think it would really have seen much adoption.

That said, AI trained on Actor-Critic with a tight human feedback loop definitely seems like the right approach to solving the problem, just not something I want to spend my time training for someone else unless I can do so with higher "entropy" ie high parallelism/optionality

[1] https://x.com/ClaudeDevs/status/2054610152817619388

[2] https://lanes.sh/blog/claude-billing-split

from 6 sessions and 5 projects only one template that I choose anything else is really really bad

It's a nice article and good point but I feel "design" in the title is misleading - the example given has an extremely reduced visual or spatial scope (something models are still not good at). The post is more about rapid prototyping.

In a way it's not much different from copy-pasting components from templates or whatever, just with more customisability. And for stuff that isn't HTML-based like React it does worse. It's also not great at building component libraries, I still write those myself with little LLM involvement, but that makes sense because the architecture is actually relevant with that, unlike generating CSS and xml-derived components, which is mostly just declarative templating anyways.

I've had decent success writing the core logic myself and then delegating the UI to AI. I think if I didn't write the core logic it would not work very well, but since it's designed well by myself the AI has a much smaller scope to work in which constrains it enough where vibe coding works. Pretty cool.

Klankers will fix everything. Right?

Using AI for things you aren't good at, or not experienced with, is literally the worst way to use AI. You WANT to struggle when learning a new language, and use reliable documentation to solve your problems, not circumvent them entirely by using AI.

This is extreme incompetence, I'm shocked that Jane Street would advertise it.

What happens after the submission? Who reviews the feature? How long? Are there any limits to the size of the diff? Do reviewers push back? How often are features submitted?

The one non-circular-financing entity that is heavily spending on AI, is interested in you knowing how wisely they think they are spending their money.

Jane Street isn't one to telegraph their moves (seems like they prefer to Telegram them privately https://protos.com/what-weve-learned-from-terraform-labs-unr... , so not only Jump Crypto felt fine letting everyone believe the ponzi, per these allegations it seems Jane Street did too). If Jane Street is spending the most, and their staff is supposedly high value pay/profit but low headcount, for all the end user knows, their "AI agent" is half chat bot / half software engineer with 20 years experience who checks each result before sending it. Literally the Mechanical Turk scam of hundreds of years ago, where a midget hides in the stand and moves the chess pieces--with shades of Amazon Fresh self checkout. Maybe the higher ups at Jane Street know this, maybe not. But unless they have a closed system that Anthropic can't get into, I would be suspicious. And, of course, they aren't /that/ free from the circular financing because they are a major investor of Anthropic. To me the fact that the blog post doesn't start with a disclosure doesn't seem like a misstep/accident. And if they find out they are being Mechanical-Turked, I think it far more likely they'll find some way of shorting before telling anyone, or they won't tell anyone.

where i'd normally spend hours combing through dribbble looking for inspiration for layouts for specific components (most of the time finding nothing), now I use chatgpt to come up with a number of different designs, then port them over to figma.

most designs produced by cgpt arent production-ready, especially for mobile. figma allows me to set proper constraints (screen size, for example), that give it a more grounded "shape"

for that reason, the actual final design is still by hand for now. however, the translation from design to implementation is greatly sped up by codex, which basically does it pixel-perfect.

all the same, still lots of tweaks needed before the final implementation is ready. design to code still has a bunch of issues that often need figuring out/standardising - font sizes, weights, etc.

this is on mobile btw, where space is very limited. havent worked on a website in a while, but i'd imagine the extra space would allow for far more liberty. i do not miss having to craft ten different designs just to ensure responsiveness. massive pita.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-04/jane-stre...

In other words, it is an AI booster. Abusing the goodwill of programmers for their OCaml involvement even though most of it was convoluted bloat and inferior to INRIA code is devious.

It happens all the time now and people need to inoculate themselves against it:

A single famous open source person or an open source involved company invested in AI suddenly posts "organic" testimonies in favor of AI. It means nothing. The person is not the same person, the company is not the same company (or is now overtly evil).