Every few months, there's a new demo that's supposed to change everything. Sometimes the technology really is a leap forward. Sometimes it's a clever way to do work that should never have been assigned in the first place. I'm interested in the technology. I'm more interested in what it makes possible for the people doing the work.
Instructional design was never supposed to be button clicking
Our profession has spent years letting deliverables define us. A stakeholder needs training; a designer builds a course. We get measured by output and then act surprised when software starts producing output faster. But the more valuable work is identifying the problem, understanding the people, mapping constraints, selecting the right response and checking whether the result works.
AI changes the work, not the responsibility
AI can accelerate drafting, analysis, prototyping and iteration. It may expose weak practices that were hiding behind labor-intensive production. That's worth acknowledging. It can also be confidently wrong, omit critical context or create an experience that looks polished while teaching the wrong behavior. Someone still has to make the decisions and accept responsibility for the outcomes.
What should designers get better at?
Investigating performance gaps. Working with subject-matter experts. Writing and testing realistic decisions. Understanding accessibility and technical delivery. Choosing useful evidence. Explaining tradeoffs to stakeholders who need more than a shiny prototype. I'm not arguing that our current jobs stay unchanged. They shouldn't. I'm arguing that we shouldn't confuse the future of a profession with the latest interface used to generate its artifacts.
Beyond the AI Hype
More Perspectives in this five-part series: