Design Dialogue

Every day we engage with other people to help us shape our decisions. In design education, in design teams, we frequently draw on the opinions of others to critique our ideas. Conversation is powerful and essential to the design process.

It doesn't always involve other people.

In fact many designers converse with themselves, particularly through writing or drawing, to incubate an idea, before seeking outside views on their thoughts.

In an interview with the Royal Drawing School, Jony Ive talked about how important internal conversations are to him, when ideas are in their "fragile" early stages. Drawings or "notes to himself" serve as a protected environment, in which he can develop his tentative thoughts.

Whether with themselves or with others, designers participate in dialogue that checks and challenges their assumptions.

Historically, the role of technology in these discussions was incidental. But in the past, technology couldn't talk back.

Even in its most simple form, the chat-based format of ChatGPT or Gemini invites conversation, as it emulates the format of the text messages we use with friends, family and colleagues. It's feasible that it could substitute the perspectives of other people during the design process, offering up commentary drawn from its internet-wide "knowledge."

The sycophantic nature of AI, however, can create echo chambers and even delusion.

The wisdom of limiting outside perspective to AI is perhaps questionable, particularly when designers should be aiming for critical thought.

But before condemning the idea it's worth remembering that AI sycophancy is a user interface feature. In the push for adoption, flattery has been built in to encourage interaction. With that in mind, there's nothing to stop a personality more conducive to constructive criticism from being developed.

Furthermore, AI could make a rich addition to the opinion canvas.

It has the potential to offer up ideas that may not have been possible through human thought alone. Turning AI into a thinking partner could increase the chances of pushing boundaries we didn't even know were there.

Without doubting that the opinions of other humans are invaluable, there's an opportunity for AI to occupy a grey zone — the space between the black-and-white of either keeping an idea to ourselves or inviting others to criticise it.

The simulated psycho-therapist of the 1960's, "ELIZA," showed that to some extent, people find it easier to talk to a computer about sensitive subjects than to a human being. This is supported today by the fact that one of the biggest uses of ChatGPT is therapy.

In the fragile early stages that Jony Ive referred to, taking advice from AI could provide a cautious way to remove a layer of protection.

Replacing sycophancy for a more-productive personality (something balanced between encouraging and challenging), designers would be able to progress the incubation of an idea, without exposing it to the brutality of open appraisal — yet.

Softer than human judgement, more expansive than just talking to ourselves, AI could be a useful way to open up the conversation.