“It's not just that you're handing off the cognitive work to make the thing, you're handing off the cognitive work to understand the thing that is made, and it is imperative upon me as a designer to make sure that that doesn't happen to users. Because understanding is not output… We have to understand that humans are understanding machines, and that understanding is critical to the outputs being successful in the present and in the future.”

Seven years required experience. Yeah, exactly. Um, and the, the first thing I realized when I used Claude Design, 'cause I was throwing a problem at it just to see what it did and how it worked, was it sat and chewed on the problem that I presented it for a while and then dumped a bunch of screens on me. And I had this dumbfounded, stupefied moment of like, I cannot… I have no hook for understanding this, for appreciating w- what are the design trade-offs that got us here? Why is this good? And because we're user-centered designers, why is this good for the sort of people who would be using it? Was completely absent. Um, and- I mean, I had a great deal of sympathy for our clients or stakeholders who sometimes get just dumped screens on them, and without, you know, the hand-holding necessary to sort of n- explain why it's good, why it's good for users. What I wound up doing with Claude Code was I taught it about pair design, and I'm like, "Okay, don't just dump screens on me. That's stupid. We're going to pair design this thing step by step, going from user needs and technological constraints through scenarios." And over the course… And it did it, and it started doing pair design with me, with me as the generator.