AI and the future of design: What skills do we need to compete against the machines?

AI and the future of design: What skills do we need to compete against the machines?

In today's rapidly advancing technological landscape, the future of employment is uncertain. Many jobs are at risk of being automated, and it's essential to understand the factors that determine which occupations are most susceptible to computerization. According to a study by Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, three criteria impact the level of risk: perception and manipulation, creative intelligence, and social intelligence.

Perception and manipulation refer to jobs that involve complex activities in this domain. These tasks require the ability to come up with clever ideas or new ways of solving problems. They also demand negotiation, persuasion, empathy, and adaptability. However, with the development of computer vision and deep learning systems, AI is becoming more proficient at deconstructing data sets and informing algorithmic design. This means that perceptual activities, which were once considered unique to human designers, may soon be replaceable by AI systems.

Creative intelligence, on the other hand, is the ability to generate valuable ideas and solve problems. While AI can create design variations and remix content, it is challenging for computers to spontaneously challenge themselves with creative questions and evaluate the value of their solutions. The breakthroughs in design often come from human insights, perspectives, and understanding of culture and humanity.

Social intelligence, the third criterion, is at the core of human-centered design. Occupations that require high social intelligence, such as public relations, acting, or comedy writing, are unlikely to be replaced by automation in the near future. Great designers possess a deep understanding of culture and humanity, which is challenging for AI to replicate.

When looking at failed gamification projects, we can learn valuable lessons about what works and what doesn't in creating engaging experiences. Pokémon Go, for example, initially captured the attention of millions of users with its storytelling elements and the nostalgic dream of becoming a Pokémon trainer. However, the game failed to engage users in the long term because the reward of adding another Pokémon to the collection wasn't motivating enough. Designers must find ways to keep people motivated without the constant need for rewards.

Frequent flyer programs often incorporate gamification elements such as points and leaderboards, but they fail to tie these elements together to create an engaging experience. The lesson here is that simply adding game elements doesn't automatically make an experience fun and motivating.

Classroom gamification can also fall into the trap of focusing solely on points, leaderboards, and badges without considering the students' motivation to learn. Badges and rewards must have meaning and value to the users to be effective.

In the case of Google News, the badges handed out to users lacked any meaningful value. This led to some users quitting the platform because they didn't want to display what they were reading. It's crucial to ensure that rewards have a purpose and resonate with the users.

Sales contests at telecom companies often only motivate the top performers, leaving the rest feeling discouraged. The competition may be too fierce for those in lower rankings to even try, resulting in a demotivated salesforce.

Highlighting failures in gamification can create frustration and negativity. Wuppermann Steel, for example, focused on highlighting failures, which only served to remind employees of what they did wrong. This approach does not inspire motivation or engagement.

Disney's gamification approach also highlighted failures, creating a competitive workplace where employees felt they had to race to the top. This led to frustration among those who felt that a reasonable pace wasn't enough to satisfy their bosses. It's essential to strike a balance between healthy competition and a supportive work environment.

Foursquare's gamification approach discouraged users once they reached a certain level of achievement. When there is no perspective for further progress, users lose interest. It's crucial to provide ongoing challenges and opportunities for growth.

Mariott's gamification project failed because employees weren't adequately educated on why they should participate. The experience of playing the game was also not motivating or engaging enough. It's vital to communicate the "why" behind gamification and ensure that the experience is compelling.

In conclusion, as AI continues to advance, designers must focus on developing skills that are less susceptible to automation. Building social intelligence and cultivating creative insights are areas where humans can excel. Additionally, when implementing gamification, it's crucial to consider the motivations of the users and create meaningful rewards. Designers can learn valuable lessons from failed projects to create engaging and successful experiences.

Actionable advice:

1. Emphasize the development of social intelligence and understanding of culture and humanity in design.
2. When implementing gamification, ensure that rewards have meaning and resonate with users.
3. Strive for a balance between healthy competition and a supportive work environment to foster motivation and engagement.