While AI tools excel at generating initial drafts of code or designs, their editing capabilities are poor. The difficulty of making specific changes often forces creators to discard the AI output and start over, as editing is where the "magic" breaks down.
Related Insights
The creative process with AI involves exploring many options, most of which are imperfect. This makes the collaboration a version control problem. Users need tools to easily branch, suggest, review, and merge ideas, much like developers use Git, to manage the AI's prolific but often flawed output.
Complex AI-generated assets like slide decks are often not directly editable. The new creative workflow is not about manual tweaks but about refining prompts and regenerating the output. Mastery of this iterative process is becoming a critical skill for creative professionals.
AI tools rarely produce perfect results initially. The user's critical role is to serve as a creative director, not just an operator. This means iteratively refining prompts, demanding better scripts, and correcting logical flaws in the output to avoid generic, low-quality content.
Most generative AI tools get users 80% of the way to their goal, but refining the final 20% is difficult without starting over. The key innovation of tools like AI video animator Waffer is allowing iterative, precise edits via text commands (e.g., "zoom in at 1.5 seconds"). This level of control is the next major step for creative AI tools.
Users mistakenly evaluate AI tools based on the quality of the first output. However, since 90% of the work is iterative, the superior tool is the one that handles a high volume of refinement prompts most effectively, not the one with the best initial result.
AI coding tools can rapidly build the first 70% of an application, but the final 30%—the complex, unique features that define your vision—will consume the vast majority of your development time. This is a critical reality check for anyone starting with these tools.
The most creative use of AI isn't a single-shot generation. It's a continuous feedback loop. Designers should treat AI outputs as intermediate "throughputs"—artifacts to be edited in traditional tools and then fed back into the AI model as new inputs. This iterative remixing process is where happy accidents and true innovation occur.
While AI coding assistants appear to boost output, they introduce a "rework tax." A Stanford study found AI-generated code leads to significant downstream refactoring. A team might ship 40% more code, but if half of that increase is just fixing last week's AI-generated "slop," the real productivity gain is much lower than headlines suggest.
AI code generation tools can fail to fix visual bugs like text clipping or improper spacing, even with direct prompts. These tools are powerful assistants for rapid development, but users must be prepared to dive into the generated code to manually fix issues the AI cannot resolve on its own.
Non-technical creators using AI coding tools often fail due to unrealistic expectations of instant success. The key is a mindset shift: understanding that building quality software is an iterative process of prompting, testing, and debugging, not a one-shot command that works in five prompts.