Dear technology companies still hire like 2015: in the AI-support world, everyone can look like a rock star. So what do you actually appreciate – and what makes the UX designer indispensable?
The illusion of perfect answers
In the AI era, a younger designer can generate a flawless design process in less than five minutes. Case analyzes? Structured Chatgpt. UI model? Automatic with Figma plug -in components. Even behavioral questions, such as “Talk to me,” can be answered with an impressive detail – completely made but completely credible.
I've tried it. I asked AI to write a time when I was dealing with engineers. It gave a diplomatic, leading sound answer that, to be honest, made me hire. Except that it was not me.
Here is a quick comparison:
- AI-Generated Answer: “During the big transformation, Engineering rejected the timeline offered by me. Instead of emotionally, I designed functional sync, redesigned with gates, and together we agreed on a gradual introduction that corresponded to both schedule and design integrity.”
- My true answer: “We were two weeks late. I was tired and the engineer was disappointed. Finally I went to our Prime Minister private, asked for help to mediate. I tried to manage in sync, but mostly listened and just admitted tension.
The first answer is polished. The other is real.
Interviews do not measure what they used to be
We are still interviewing as it is 2015: asking for portfolio asking, walking through design processes and throwing some board training. But the tools have changed. The candidate can now be put together in a polished portfolio without ever being on a messy project. They can generate the quotes of stakeholders, user flows and even the reflections of feedback that sound deeply thought out.
In other words, an interview performance may now be outsourcedTo. But true design – what happens between unclear goals, technical restrictions and team failure – cannot be falsified.
Are you hiring quick pros or problem solver?
The design is increasingly the knowledge of how to work with AI. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But this raises the question: Do we value someone's ability to design or their ability to accelerate the tools that do it for them?
What happens if a higher level candidate gives the perfect letter-shaped answer to the placement of stakeholders-it is terribly generic? Do we praise their Poland or question their ownership?
This does not concern the AI gateway. It is related to the circumcision of signals in fact matter.
What should we work for now?
This new landscape does not have the designers who stand out, the ones that are the most floral case analysis or the purest Figma files. They are the ones who bloom in the tense of the real world where deadlines slip, the requirements change, the stakeholders do not agree and nothing goes exactly as planned.
They are good:
- Making decisions with incomplete or contradictory data
- Navigation in the unclear without waiting for perfect clarity
- Negotiations with PMS and Engineers Product direction when goals collide
- Ethical blinds on the spot AI cannot foresee – and has the courage to speak
These are not the skills that appear on the passage of the portfolio and did not practice the case analysis. These are under pressure in gray areas with less Poland and more on principles for live interactions.
But how can companies help expose these features? Shifting the concentration from the presentation to the presence.
- Create space in interviews for untreated cooperation
- Introduce scenarios with imperfect information and see how a candidate frames the problem
- Observe how they respond to vague feedback
- Ask for something that went sideways – and listen not to the result but the way of thinking
The best designers of the era can't just do beautiful things. They can do decisions If the road is unclear, and people surrounding themselves are more secure for being in the room.
So, do we hire a designer or their AI co -pilot? Can -Olla both. But let's make sure we know which one actually drives.
