The False Modernization of AI-Driven Products

I have been noticing a curious pattern among people new to the world of AI. An almost childlike enthusiasm for what these tools can produce. A few prompts, a handful of vague adjectives like "more modern," "more innovative," "more eye-catching," and entire websites get rebuilt by tools like Lovable, Replit, and similar platforms.

No context. No metrics. No evidence whatsoever that the current layout is not working.

No conversion analysis, no behavioral data, no A/B tests, not even a clear hypothesis. The request is simple and dangerous: "make site X match my personal taste." And that is exactly where the problem lives.

Designing a product has never been, and will never be, about satisfying the preferences of the person doing the designing. It is not about the color I find most beautiful, the typography that appeals to me, or the aesthetic that speaks to my personal repertoire. Design is not individual artistic expression. It is informed decision-making.

When someone uses AI to "modernize" a product without understanding what already works, they are simply replacing one set of possibly grounded decisions with another that is entirely arbitrary.

Automating guesswork does not turn it into strategy.

There is also a recurring side effect: aesthetic AI ignores basic criteria like accessibility in favor of subjective preferences. Poor contrast, confusing hierarchy, illegible typography.

It looks better. It is not always more usable.

There is no question about the potential of generative AI. Just as there is no question about the potential of a Ferrari. Both are powerful. And both, in the wrong hands, cause damage.

The problem has never been what the technology can do. The right question has always been: how do I direct it toward what is best for my product and, above all, for my user?

That requires something no AI delivers ready-made: judgment.

It requires recognizing that "I am not the target audience," even if I happen to be part of it. It requires understanding the history of that product, the decisions it went through, the trade-offs that were made, the problems that were solved, and the ones that remain. A product does not come from nowhere, and it should not be redesigned as if it were a blank slate.

The contemporary obsession with disruption also deserves caution. Making an impact is seductive. It is easy to confuse noise with progress. But not every impact is positive. (Ask the dinosaurs.)

Disruption without direction is just rupture. And rupture without purpose tends to be expensive.

AI can speed up processes, expand repertoires, suggest directions, and even reveal invisible possibilities. But it does not replace the responsibility of the person making decisions. It does not replace user understanding, nor the commitment to real results.

In the end, using AI for design without context is not innovation. It is just swapping the human "I think" for the algorithmic "it seems."

And that, definitively, does not make any product better.