Figma is dead. UX is dead. Designers are dead. Long live AI—Not.

Say hello to the world of "Hot AI Ketchup", the useless UX conversations that all disciplines are dead, flooding your feed.

Seriously, WTF is going on! Allow me to rant about this freely:

Let's talk about the latest batch of overhyped, over-sumptuous, and flat-out misleading conversations that are circulating on LinkedIn on UX and web design. You've seen them, and you will 1000x times more. The ones that get 100+ likes and comments from people who barely know what they're talking about.

Here's the pattern:

A self-proclaimed thought leader posts something like:

• "Figma is dead? Designers don't even open it anymore!"

• "UX is dead—AI is replacing everyone!"

• "Engineering is dead—AI can code anything!"
  

Next in the menu, we will start hearing:

"UX Research is dead—AI is fast with synthetic users, who has time to talk to humans and why, though!"

"UX writers/ Content teams, my a*ss—AI is writing for me for free!"

And what happens? A flood of comments nodding in agreement, parroting the buzzwords, as if we've all decided to abandon rational thought in favor of engagement bait.

Let's break it down. Focusing specifically on UX and Figma are both dead revelation topics, as these folks think that UX is Figma, and before Figma, it was no UX. Like, please give me a break.

Figma isn't going anywhere—Neither is Sketch.

Figma isn't "dying." Sketch didn't "die." And whatever hot new AI tool you think will "replace everything" won't either. Unless they got acquired/shut down or stopped innovating and took the wrong path (wink wink, remember Invision).

Why? Because these are, and let me freaking say it out loud high-fidelity visual design tools. That's their essence. Their domain. Their purpose.

Yes, they have:

• Infinite canvas/ wall to replace physical whiteboard with colorful sticky notes.

• Mid-fidelity prototypes.

• Developer handoff features with Code snippets.

• Design system library feature with reusable components.

But guess what? That doesn't make them UX tools. That doesn't mean PMs or Engineers with their AI-generated wireframes or UI will suddenly take over the entire field of UX.

Figma, Sketch, and similar tools exist to craft and maintain high-end, pixel-perfect UI work. They serve designers only, not product managers who suddenly want to tinker with components, and definitely not writers.

Think of them as Photoshop, Illustrator, and Fireworks back then. When did you remember you shared a PSD with your PM to modify it, even the so-called nerdiest ones that master all trades, unless you want to rework all your work and get the blame? Not their AI prompts spitting out random pre-cooked layouts (All of them use free UI libraries like ShadCN, so everything will look the same, not only for you but for everybody using the AI tool, and if you just want to make a small edit, you'll have to repeat all that again, and try to carefully not go over your credit limit). Not people who don't know how to design.

And that brings us to the real problem.

The rise of "Shallow Thinkers and Engagement-Bait Takers".

Many of the people making these bold claims—those stirring the pot about "the future of UX"—aren't even designers.

They're (No-offense and not generalizing here; if you get offended, it means you're feeling the guilt):

• PMs who got invited to a Figma file and think they're experts.

• People who have never built a real website from scratch and pretend to know everything.

• Career shifters chasing Silicon Valley salaries, hyping up tools they barely understand by simply watching a couple of YouTube tutorials or passing a boot camp and adding an expertise label to their title).

• AI fanatics who assume everything will be automated overnight. These are the most BS talkers.

Do they even know:

• How does the web actually work beyond drag-and-drop tools?

• What happens after a domain name is registered?

• How does hosting, deployment, or performance optimization work? Have they heard of CDN, DNS, SSL, GZIP, WOFF, Image/ Icon Sprites,...

• The actual craft of UI design beyond clicking components together?

Wait, wait, … little nostaglia here:

Before, we used to call a web designer a webmaster—a rare breed who could do it all. Not because they had a degree or watched a few tutorials but because they were battle-tested. They built websites from scratch, dealt with copywriting, information architecture, and SEO wrote HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and designed everything down to the pixel. They knew how to slice and compress images, when to use PNG vs. JPG, and where to place JS for optimal performance. They set up servers, configured FTP access, used SSH, migrated databases, and debugged errors—over and over again, always accepting challenges and trying to solve problems in an era where information was limited to a few magazines, websites and forums: WebDesigner, .Net magazine, Computer Arts, A list Apart, Smashing Magazine, CSS Zen Garden, FWA, K10K, Kirupa, SitePoint Forums, StackOverflow,... (I see you oldy Photoshop/Fireworks, FrontPage/Dreamweaver gurus, Notepad++, Geocities, text marquee animators 🤣).

When these veterans test AI tools, their perspective is completely different from the so-called "experts" claiming everything is dead just because AI can generate a soulless UI with some slapped-on logic. Do these AI cheerleaders even understand half of what goes into real web design? Do they know about progressive enhancement, usability, accessibility, performance optimization, semantic markup, or security best practices? Or are they just riding the hype, unaware of the craft behind what they're so eager to replace?

No, they don't.

Yet here they are, writing TEDx-level posts about the "future of UX." giving us their predictions and killing hopes on the fly with their nonsense statements.

Stop shitting on your own food.

Why are they so eager to redefine the work of actual designers? Why is everyone desperate to touch design system components inside Figma? Disvaluing the work of the User Research team for their gut feelings, breaking designers' work because they don't like 8px spacing here, as it feels unbalanced in their Steve Jobs eyes, or even thinking that UX writing and Content Strategy is just some writing tasks that they can do quickly, refining to whatever they like, maybe remembering a line from Mad Men, how f*ing creative. Stay in your lane, for god sake.

And designers, why are some of you feeding into this chaos? To say the least, we don't need to prove ourselves by pretending we do everything—UX, UI, research, strategy, development, AI, copywriting. Master your craft first. If your spacing is off, your typography is bad, and your UI lacks consistency, focus on fixing that before jumping into other disciplines. Take your time—don't get caught up in rushed, sloppy, springy/lean, shitty-ish methodologies.

This isn't about rejecting AI, Figma, or any new tech. It's about seeing past the hype and focusing on what truly matters. If you've been around long enough, you remember the dot-com bubble, Web 2.0, and the fintech and crypto craze. Each exposed its fair share of scams and failures.

Don't worship trends or tools. They come and go. Remember Flash? It was huge. Now it's gone. InVision was once essential for UI designers. Now it's gone. Tools aren't the answer. They are just tools. What matters is your foundation—solid visual design, UX principles, strategic and business thinking, and user/customer focus. That's what lasts; it did for so many before, now, and in the future.

Is it that dark?

Yes, however, the industry is having a big seismic shift now. It's not about AI alone; it's about who can ride the waves with solid foundations.

The AI Rush is pushing UX aside.

Seasoned UX professionals, the ones who built this field, are being sidelined in the AI rush. Some stay silent, some observe from a distance, and others fight back against the nonsense. This isn't about resisting change—these are the same experts who shaped UX through every major shift, from mobile-first design to scalable frameworks. They embrace innovation but won't sacrifice the fundamentals, yet that's exactly what's happening.

Companies are rushing to inject AI into their products without solid UX foundations. AI won't fix broken design, replace critical UX thinking, or serve as a shortcut to great user experiences. AI agents require strategy, testing, and real effort—it's not just another no-code tool that requires some prompts, hooking up some API ends, and calling it a day.

Before jumping on the AI bandwagon, companies need strong UX teams, clear frameworks, measurable success, and cross-team collaboration with extensive testing and iteration. AI can enhance UX, but without a solid foundation, it's just another trend doomed to fail.

Balance: The key to a "Future-Proof UX Practice".

This isn't about choosing between AI and UX; that's a false dichotomy. The real opportunity lies in thoughtful integration that strengthens both. AI is merely a tool, while UX is a multifaceted discipline with interconnected components that cannot be distilled into a simple prompt.

AI can certainly enhance research efficiency, optimize workflows, and handle repetitive tasks, but it cannot substitute the craft, strategic thinking, and deep user understanding that exceptional UX requires. The spectrum from human empathy and business objectives to visual design principles and implementation details exists in a complex ecosystem that no algorithm can replicate with a keystroke.

The nuanced comprehension of context, cultural sensitivities, and behavioral patterns demands human insight that AI fundamentally lacks without designer guidance. The true potential emerges when designers harness AI as an extension of their expertise rather than a replacement.

Meaningful UX emerges from accumulated experience, instructive failures, and continuous evolution, not from pattern-matching algorithms. When we reduce design to algorithmic replication, we sacrifice the innovative thinking that advances our field. While AI can improve our efficiency, the essence of design, the intuition born from deep user engagement and problem-solving, remains an inherently human capability.

Wake the f up.

And if we're so busy hyping up AI that we forget the actual work of UX, what are we really building?

This is where the wisdom of experienced practitioners comes in. These so-called "old-school" UXers—the ones who have actually designed, tested, built, and shipped real products—have seen hype cycles come and go. They know what lasts. They know what matters.

And guess what? We need them more than ever.

So, let's not ignore them in favor of the latest AI trend. Instead, let's listen, learn, and build something that actually works.

Final Thought: Let's get back to reality first.

Well, just my two cents—I’m sure I missed a few things. But hopefully, these points help reset our filters, so we don’t let all the daily BS corrupt our principles and subconscious thinking.

• Follow the right people—the ones who actually know what they're talking about, not just AI hype-chasers. This is a personal list of names I respect for their work and judgment. If you don’t see yours, it’s not a critique—just what I recalled.
  
  

  General UX: Darren Hood, MSUXD, Thomas Wilson, Jared Spool, Erika Hall, Vitaly Friedman, Tony Moura, Deneen Luxford, Jeffrey Zeldman, Jason Fried, Debbie Levitt, Andy Vitale, Eric Shumake
  
  Content Design/ Strategy: Karen McGrane, Jeff Eaton, Jonathan Colman, Sarah Winters, Torrey (Newcomb) Podmajersky, Sophia V Prater, Kristina Halvorson, Noz Urbina, Patrick Stafford, Roxanna Font (Aliaga)
  
  UI/ Design systems: Geoff Teehan, Matt D. Smith, Claudio Guglieri, Dan Mall, Brad Frost, Michael Riddering, Joey Banks, Erik Kennedy, Luke Wroblewski, Jayneil Dalal