While AI development tools can improve backend efficiency by up to 90%, they often create user interface challenges. AI tends to generate very verbose text that takes up too much space and can break the UX layout, requiring significant time and manual effort to get right.
Related Insights
AI development tools can be "resistant," ignoring change requests. A powerful technique is to prompt the AI to consider multiple options and ask for your choice before building. This prevents it from making incorrect unilateral decisions, such as applying a navigation change to the entire site by mistake.
When using "vibe-coding" tools, feed changes one at a time, such as typography, then a header image, then a specific feature. A single, long list of desired changes can confuse the AI and lead to poor results. This step-by-step process of iteration and refinement yields a better final product.
As AI models become proficient at generating high-quality UI from prompts, the value of manual design execution will diminish. A professional designer's key differentiator will become their ability to build the underlying, unique component libraries and design systems that AI will use to create those UIs.
Research highlights "work slop": AI output that appears polished but lacks human context. This forces coworkers to spend significant time fixing it, effectively offloading cognitive labor and damaging perceptions of the sender's capability and trustworthiness.
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.
Instead of fighting for perfect code upfront, accept that AI assistants can generate verbose code. Build a dedicated "refactoring" phase into your process, using AI with specific rules to clean up and restructure the initial output. This allows you to actively manage technical debt created by AI-powered speed.
It's infeasible for humans to manually review thousands of lines of AI-generated code. The abstraction of review is moving up the stack. Instead of checking syntax, developers will validate high-level plans, two-sentence summaries, and behavioral outcomes in a testing environment.
AI tools can generate vast amounts of verbose code on command, making metrics like 'lines of code' easily gameable and meaningless for measuring true engineering productivity. This practice introduces complexity and technical debt rather than indicating progress.
As AI generates more code, the core engineering task evolves from writing to reviewing. Developers will spend significantly more time evaluating AI-generated code for correctness, style, and reliability, fundamentally changing daily workflows and skill requirements.
AI coding tools generate functional but often generic designs. The key to creating a beautiful, personalized application is for the human to act as a creative director. This involves rejecting default outputs, finding specific aesthetic inspirations, and guiding the AI to implement a curated human vision.