*

Why I Keep Adding Mistakes Back Into My Work




Published

I’ve been sitting with this for a while now — not because I have some grand theory, but because every time I open a new project I notice the ground shifting a little more under my feet. Here’s what I keep coming back to.

AI stopped being the scary thing and started being the annoying coworker who’s actually pretty useful.

A year or two ago the conversation was all doom — is this going to replace us. Now it just… sits there in my process. I sketch, I let it generate ten dumb variations, I throw away nine of them. What I’m noticing is that the actual skill I bring to the table isn’t execution anymore, it’s taste. Knowing which one of those ten isn’t garbage. That’s a strange thing to sit with.

Article content

 

I’m craving mess again, and I don’t think I’m alone.

 

Everything AI touches comes out a little too smooth, a little too “right.” And honestly? I’m bored of it. I’ve caught myself adding a wobble to a line that didn’t need one, leaving a rough edge in instead of cleaning it up. It’s not nostalgia exactly — it’s more like I want proof a person was in the room. I think a lot of us are quietly rebelling against the polish by hand.

 

Article content

Static feels dead to me lately.

 

I used to be fine handing off a logo and a PDF of brand guidelines and calling it done. Now that feels incomplete, like delivering half a thing. Everything lives on a screen that moves, so why wouldn’t the identity move too? Even something small — a letterform that breathes, a mark that reacts — makes a static system feel like it’s from another decade.

 

Article content

The past keeps sneaking back in, but wearing new clothes.

 

I can’t fully explain why early-internet, lo-fi, scrapbook-y stuff keeps showing up in my own sketches lately. Maybe it’s comfort. Maybe after staring at AI-smooth output all day, my brain wants something that looks handled, collected, a little imperfect and human — even while I’m using the newest tools to make it.

 

Article content

 

I don’t trust a brand that can’t bend anymore.

 

The rigid rulebook approach — here’s your logo, here’s your three colors, never deviate — feels increasingly out of step with how fast everything moves online. What I respect now is systems built to flex: same DNA, different costume depending on where it shows up. It’s harder to design that way. It’s also more honest about how brands actually live now.

 

Article content

 

If I had to bet on one thing: the designers who’ll matter most aren’t the ones who master every new tool, and they’re not the ones refusing to touch AI either. It’s the ones who can still tell you why — why this choice, why this texture, why this feels right and that doesn’t. That instinct is the one thing I don’t think gets automated away. At least not yet.

That’s where my head’s at right now. Ask me again in six months and I’ll probably contradict half of this.

Comments