AI 时代的设计：品味、工艺与观点

如果你是一位产品经理，觉得自己的工作就是写文档、做幻灯片供上级审阅和对齐，你会爱上我们正在进入的这个新世界——你也能亲手创造东西。人们需要看到组织里的领导者也在创造，这才能激发灵感、真正带来转折。我们正在进入一个设计即代码的时代。你将用视觉优先的方式设计，并且能直接通过 Pull Request 发布到生产环境。在画布上直接操作显然优于提示词，而且设计的直接操作很可能也优于代码编辑。未来，世界在视觉上会变得更加有趣。我希望这能成为一个文艺复兴时期。好了，大家好，今天我非常激动地请到了 Dylan。Dylan 是 Figma 的联合创始人兼 CEO，也是我最喜欢的工具之一，它正在改变世界。所以我很期待和他聊聊设计在 AI 时代的作用、工艺以及其它话题。欢迎你，先生。

If you're a PM and you think that your job is to make documents and slide decks for upwards review and alignment, you're going to love this new world that we're in. You get to make things, too. People need to see that leaders in their organization are making things, too, and that is what inspires and actually creates inflection. We're entering a world where design is the new code. You'll be designing in a visual first way, and you'll be able to do a pull request right to production. Direct manipulation on the canvas is just clearly superior to prompting, and probably design direct manipulation is superior to code editing. As we move ahead, the world gets a lot more visually interesting, too. I'm hopeful that this will be like a renaissance period for that. All right. Hey everyone, I'm really excited to host Dylan today. Dylan is the co-founder and CEO of Figma, one of my favorite tools by far, and it's changing the world, so really excited to chat with him about design's role in the age of AI and craft and everything else. So, welcome, sir.

非常感谢你，Peter。感谢你的邀请。你知道吗，如果我能重新开始职业生涯，我会选择做设计师。你还可以做到，还不晚。尤其是现在，每个人都是创造者，每个人都身兼多职。但我觉得世界变化很快，很多事情在发生。你最近在多个播客中提到，AI 不会取代工作，人类的品味仍然重要，对吧？所以我很好奇，你对品味的定义是什么？或者说，一个人怎样才能培养出好的品味？

Thank you so much, Peter. Appreciate you having me. You know, if I could start my career over, I'd be a designer. You can still do it. Not too late. I mean, especially nowadays where everyone is a builder, everyone is wearing multiple hats. But I think there's a lot changing fast, there's a lot of things happening. And you kind of made a bunch of podcast appearances lately saying that AI is not going to take over jobs, like human taste still matters, right? So, I'm just curious, like what is your definition of taste or how does someone even get good at taste?

有趣的是，硅谷对品味如此热衷。我认为工艺可能与之重叠，但也是不同的。还有观点——一个人可以有品味，可以用工艺和意图去构建，但仍然没有非常清晰的观点，即使工艺非常精湛。所以，当你思考这些不同领域时，对我来说，品味实际上是关于探索各种可能性，拥有清晰且能表达出来的偏好，并且能够帮助他人理解你追求的是什么、不是什么。而工艺，则是超越他人止步之处，从整体到微观细节，再到宏观层面，确保所有抽象层次都契合。至于观点，我认为是通过产品或设计表达你在世界上看到的独特之处，以一种将某种洞察或见解带入生活的方式，推动对话向前发展。我认为，无论是消费级还是企业级产品，软件还是硬件，最好的产品确实对未来有看法。它们对事物应该怎样、人们应该如何生活或工作有自己的观点。而且，如果每个人都同意你的观点，那你可能就没有什么观点了。

It's funny how Silicon Valley is so excited about taste, and I think that craft is also maybe overlapping, but distinct as well. And then there's point of view, where you can have taste as a person, and you can build with craft and intention, and still not have a very clear point of view, even though you were incredibly craftful. And so, I think that as you kind of think about what are those different territories, to me, taste is really about navigating the possibilities of what's out there and having preferences that are really clear that you can articulate, and also being able to help others understand what it is and what it is not that you're going for. Craft to me, though, is really pushing past where others might push and thinking about things in their entirety, and down to the micro and small level, as well as the macro level. It's like all the different levels of abstraction, you make sure they fit together. And then there's point of view, and I think that for point of view, you really want to actually be expressing through a product or a design something that is unique that you see in the world. And doing it in a way where you're almost bringing some insight or some take to life that is moving some conversation forward. And I think that across many products that are consumer, enterprise, whatever, in software and hardware, I think that the best products actually do have a point of view about the future. They do have a point of view about how things should be and how people should live their lives or work. You know, and I think that if everyone agrees to your point of view, you're probably not having much of a point of view.

没错。如果你没有观点，那么利益相关者或用户就会替你定义观点，对吧？

Yeah, exactly. If you don't have a point of view, then the stakeholders or the users would define your point of view, right?

完全正确。我认为有一些互动是好的。事实上，倾听用户和客户的意见，达到各种局部最优，是非常好的。但观点可能是全局最优，或者它会带你到下一个局部最优，而不是第一个。否则，你只是在局部迭代。我觉得问设计师关于品味或什么是好设计总是很有趣。首先，从任何数量的设计师那里得到的关于设计本身的定义数量之多令人惊讶。而且，如果你和五位非常有经验的设计师一起做设计评审，从美学或用户体验角度争论桌上哪个设计最好，你可能会从五位设计师那里得到 100 个不同的答案。我认为这是一种情况，有太多不同的方向可以选择，关键是如何缩小可能性空间并正确遍历那棵树。

Exactly. Yeah. And I think it's fine to have some interplay there. In fact, it's really good to listen to users and customers to get to all sorts of local maximum, but point of view, I think, is maybe global maximum, or it's going to get you to the next local maximum, rather. Or the first one. And otherwise, you're just kind of iterating around sort of where you're locally are. I think that it's always interesting to ask designers about taste or ask them what good design is. And, you know, first of all, just the number of definitions you can get about design itself from any number of designers is amazing, but also, you know, if you do a design crit with like really experienced designers and you have five in a room, and you argue through from a aesthetic standpoint or from a UX standpoint or both, you know, what is the best design here on the table, you know, you might get like 100 different answers from the five designers. And I think it's a sort of thing where there's just so many different places you can go, and then it's about like how do you actually narrow down that possibility space and traverse that tree properly.

嗯。我想你发展出对品味的观点，显然是通过与用户交流以及过去的经验。这有点像你在给 AI 助手提供上下文，它将成为你个人的上下文，对吧？

Mhm. And I guess you kind of develop the point of view on taste just from obviously talking to users and from your past experiences. It's kind of like you're giving context to your AI assistant, like it's going to be your own personal context, right?

是的。我认为随着时间的推移，你当然可以。但任何特定时刻的文化影响也非常重要。我只想说，我发现最有趣的转折点是你处于前沿，比任何人都走得更远，然后实时快速更新，得出一些关于设计、美学或策略的观察，然后做出跳跃，而不是局部地迭代一步。这说得通吗？

Yeah. I think that over time, absolutely, you can. But there's also always the cultural influences of any given moment that I think really matter. And I would just say that I find that the most interesting points of inflection are where you're kind of on a frontier, and you're pushing further than anyone else has pushed already, and then you're kind of like rapidly updating real time, and then you get a few observations out, whether it be on design, or aesthetic, or strategy, and then you kind of make a leap, rather than try to iterate one step locally. Did that make any sense?

明白了。我想我应该举个具体的例子。比如，我几周前开始使用 Open Claw，它是个相当粗糙的产品，对吧？它并不总是能正常工作，经常出问题，但它确实改变了我的想法——哦，这些智能体基本上能完成我想做的任何事情。所以，也许与其让人们访问我正在构建的网站，不如让他们的智能体来替我做事。这完全颠覆了我的想法。

Got it. I guess I should give a specific example. Like, you know, I started using Open Claw like a couple weeks ago, and I mean, it's a pretty janky product, right? It doesn't always work all the time. Like it keeps breaking, but definitely kind of warped my mind on like, oh, like these agents can actually do like basically whatever I wanted to do. So, like maybe instead of making people come to this website that I'm building, maybe they can just get their agent to come and do their stuff instead. So, that was kind of totally warped my mind.

是的。而且，关于 Open Claw 有趣的一点是，你不知道发帖的人到底是在角色扮演智能体，还是在真实反思智能体做了什么。确实很难理解。

Yeah. Yeah, and you know, I don't know if it's the funny thing about Open Claw is you don't know who posting about it is actually, especially if you don't know the person, who is actually like larping, being an agent, or who's actually like reflecting on what the agent actually did. Yeah, it's hard to wrap your head around it for sure.

本期节目由 Linear 赞助播出。工程师们使用 Cursor、Claude Code 和 CodeX 等工具。很多工作是在无形中完成的。有人可以从 Slack 中的 bug 报告直接到发布修复，而不在代码编辑器之外留下任何记录。这对速度来说没问题，但随着规模扩大，协调会变得更困难。

This episode is brought to you by Linear, where engineers use tools like Cursor, Claude Code, and CodeX. A lot of work happens invisibly. Someone can go from a bug report in Slack to a shipped fix without creating any record of what happened outside of the code editor. And that's fine for speed, but it makes coordination harder as you scale.

Linear 直接与最优秀的智能体编码工具（如 Cursor 和 CodeX）集成。这样，任何人都能看到智能体正在做什么，以及谁分配了任务给它。你既能获得智能体的速度，又不会失去团队内的可见性。OpenAI、Ramp 和 Block 的产品团队都在使用 Linear 与 AI 智能体协作。我自己也用 Linear 来运营我的创作者业务。所以，请访问 linear.app/agents 查看。网址是 linear.app/agents。现在，回到我们的节目。

Linear integrates with the very best agent coding tools directly, like Cursor and CodeX. That way, anyone can see what an agent is working on and who assigned them to the task. You get the speed of agents without losing visibility across the team. Product teams at OpenAI, Ramp, and Block are all using Linear to collaborate with AI agents. And I use Linear myself to run my creator business. So, check it out at linear.app/agents. That's linear.app/agents. Now, back to our episode.

你觉得智能体和 AI 能学会品味吗？比如，如果我是一个很好的设计师，我可以放一个 Claude Code 量表之类的东西，然后说，这是我的一些原则，这是你应该做和不应该做的事。之后它可能就不再产出那种紫色垃圾了。但我们真的能训练智能体学会这些东西吗？

Do you think agents and AI can learn taste? Like, if I'm a really good designer, I can just put a Claude Code scale or something and say, here's some principles I have, and here's kind of what you should do and not do. And maybe it can stop doing purple slop after that. But do you think we can actually train our agents to learn this stuff?

我认为模型已经达到了一个地步，它们的视觉输出——比如 Gemini 3.0 或 1.1 的发布，甚至 3.0——如果你用正确的方式提示（当然需要复杂的提示），但如果你给它它能理解的参考，并且你足够用力地推动它，你可以得到一些相当令人难以置信的输出。所以，我认为这些输出就像是在点亮一个可能性空间。你在创造你可以探索的不同地方。但从那以后，我从未觉得我能一次就得到答案，一步到位。甚至比你可能看到的普通输出，或者你所说的紫色垃圾，我实际上对那个有观点、有方向的东西有更多看法，而不是对紫色垃圾。紫色垃圾或普通输出，你只会觉得，酷。它完成了任务。我自己还有很多可以推动它去做的事情，或者我在视觉上或体验上可以表达更多。但它确实有效。而一旦你再进一步，背后有了一些意图，我认为那就是你进入有趣地方的时候，那个动态循环开始出现，你真的想自己进一步推动它。而提示并不总是实现它的方式。我认为很多时候，实际上，你需要做的是作为人类去推动它，为了真正迭代到正确的地方，这是必要的。

I think that models have already gotten to a place where their visual output, for example, with the Gemini 3.0 release, or 1.1, but even 3.0, I thought if you prompted it the right way — complex prompt for sure, but if you gave it references it understood, and you pushed it hard enough — you could get some pretty incredible outputs. So, I think those outputs are again like you're lighting up this possibility space. You're creating these different places that you could explore. And from there, though, I never found that I could get my answer one-shot, done. Even more than sort of an average output that you might see, or what you're referring to as purple slop, I think I actually had more opinions about the thing with point of view, and that it actually had a direction to it, than I did about the purple slop. Purple slop or average output, you're just like, cool. It does the thing. There's a lot more I would push it to do myself, or what more expression I could have here visually, or experientially. But it works. And once you actually go another step further, and you have some intent behind it, I think that's the point at which you get to interesting places where that dynamic loop starts to occur, and you really want to go push it further yourself. And prompting's not always the way to do it. I think a lot of times, actually, what you need to do is push it forward as a human, and in order to actually iterate to the right place, that's necessary.

我明白了。而且我认为一个真正好的设计师不会只是——我之前告诉过你——不会只是说，嘿，这是一个提示，这是代码，好了，我就用这个我建的网站了，对吧？他们需要探索不同的视角，然后再收敛。这正是一个好的设计师应该做的。所以我很好奇，因为我们基本上是在试图从想法到产品。这就是你在做的事情。中间有很多步骤。以前我在微软或一些公司工作时，我们必须写 16 页的 PRD 之类的废话。甚至在产品之前就有很多中间产物。但现在代码基本上是免费的，你可以做这些事情。那么，即使在 Figma 团队内部，你们现在是如何从想法到产品的？你们是先做一堆原型，然后再到 Figma，还是视情况而定？

I see. And I think a really good designer is not just going to — I told you this before — it's not just going to be like, hey, here's a prompt, and here's the code, and okay, I'm going to go with this website that I built, right? They need to explore divergent perspectives and then converge again. That's kind of what a good designer should do. So, I'm curious, because we're basically trying to get from idea to product. That's basically what you're doing. There's a lot of intermediate steps. Back when I was working at Microsoft or some of these companies, we had to write 16-page PRDs and all this kind of crap. There's a lot of intermediate artifacts that had to happen before even the product. But now code is basically free, and you can kind of do this stuff. So, even internally in Figma teams, how do you guys go from idea to product now? Do you prototype a bunch of variations first and then go to Figma, or does it depend?

是的，我认为这完全取决于情况。我认为有时我们从深入讨论开始。有时我们中的一个人只是用铅笔、纸和笔记本进行构思。我认为有时我们在设计或协作头脑风暴中，或者我们直接在代码中，或者进行设计。现在有很多不同的方式可以开始，包括从你已有的现有设置、网站或应用开始。而且我认为无论你从哪里开始，我们的工作是确保当你在不同阶段之间跳跃时——这些阶段在以前是线性过程中的阶段，比如构思、对齐、设计和实际生产——你可以从任何地方开始，但你可能想去这个过程中的所有地方。我想确保我们能在 Figma 平台上完全实现这一点，因为我看到这种情况越来越多。甚至不能称之为一个循环，因为你并不总是循环回到同一个东西，而是所有这些跳跃都可能在你真正探索时发生。这包括大量的发散和收敛，但这些菱形——它们层层叠加，并且可以从任何点跳到任何其他点，无论产物在哪里或是什么。

Yeah, I think it totally depends. I think there are times that we start with deep discussion. There are times where one of us is just ideating away with pencil and paper and a notebook. I think there are times where we're in design or in a collaborative brainstorm, or we're literally in code, or making designs. And there's so many different ways that I think you can start now, including from an existing setup or website or app that you already have. And I think that wherever you start, our job is to make sure that as you hop around between the different stages — or what were stages in a linear process before, between ideation and alignment and design and actual production — you can start anywhere, but you might want to go everywhere in that process. And I want to make sure that we can enable that fully on the Figma platform, because that's what I see happening more and more. It's not even right to call it a loop, because it's not like you're always looping back to the same thing, but it's all these hops that could occur as you're really trying to explore. And that includes a lot of divergence and convergence, but it's those diamond shapes — they stack on top of each other and they could be from any point to any other point in terms of where the artifact is or what it is.

是啊，人们总是问我，‘嘿，Peter，设计完成了吗？规格完成了吗？’就像它永远不会完成，老兄。在产品发布之前甚至之后，它永远不会完成。这就是数字化的美妙之处——你永远不必说它完成了。有些人在工业设计或物理世界受过训练；他们试图确保自己经历一个可以完成的过程，在过程结束时，就像你把产品交付出去。如果你不喜欢它，那就太糟了，因为你无法更新这个东西。而在软件世界，是比特而不是原子——我们可以不断更新。这是一个令人惊叹的世界，能够这样做是一种奢侈。但同样，现在速度，或者说对速度的感知，还在增加。你想要能够更快地推进更远，我认为重要的是不要让你只是朝着某个东西奔跑。你需要跑，但你需要朝着正确的方向跑。所以，保持速度，但要有方向感。知道你要去哪里。

Yeah, people keep asking me, 'Hey, Peter, is the design done or is the spec done?' It's like it's never done, man. It's never done till the product ships or even afterwards. That's the beauty of digital — you never have to say it's done. And you've got people that are trained in industrial design or the physical world; they try to make sure that they go through a process that can complete, and at the end of the process it's like you're shipping it off. And if you don't like it, too bad because you cannot update this thing. And then the software world of bits instead of atoms — we get to update constantly. It's an amazing world to live in, and what a luxury to be able to do that. But also, very much the case that now the velocity, or perception of velocity, is even increasing. You want to be able to push further, faster, and I think it's just really important to not make it so that you're just running towards something. You need to run, but you need to run towards the right thing. So, keep the velocity, but have some sense of cardinality. Know where you're going.

是啊，你不想原地打转，我想。

Yeah, you don't want to run in circles, I guess.

是的。同样地，我认为 Figma 和 CP 是很棒的产品，现在你可以从代码回到 Figma 画布，对吧？网上有些人说，‘为什么 Figma 要发布这个？我为什么要从代码回到 Figma 画布？’对吧？我认为这又回到了那些菱形之类的东西。也许你可以解释一下你们为什么发布这个功能。

Yeah. And along the same lines, I think Figma and CP are great products, and now you can go from code back to the Figma canvas, right? And some people online are like, 'Why did Figma ship this? Why would I want to go from code to the Figma canvas?' Right? And I think it's kind of going back to those diamond shapes and stuff. Maybe you can explain why you guys shipped that.

我认为正是如此——在不同阶段之间跳跃的能力。如果你从代码开始，你可能想回到设计来完善或沟通想法。这是为了支持非线性探索的现实。所以我们发布了这个功能，以支持过程不是线性的这一现实，你应该能够在代码和设计之间自由移动。

I think it's exactly that — the ability to hop between different stages. If you start in code, you might want to go back to design to refine or communicate ideas. It's about enabling that non-linear exploration. So, we shipped it to support the reality that the process is not linear, and you should be able to move freely between code and design.

我觉得你可能从设计开始，也可能从代码或其他地方开始。如果你在写代码，可以开始做一个原型，先弄出点东西来玩玩。有很多方式能做到这一点。我们希望让你在某个时刻能够发散，然后用 Figma 来做那些更适合用 Figma 的事情，比如间距、颜色，或者你可以直接操作的画布属性。在画布上直接操作并快速获得反馈，显然比用提示词更优越。代码编辑本身也比提示词好，而调整这类东西时，设计的直接操作可能又比代码编辑更好。从广度来看，画布是一个天然的地方。它是一个无限画布，你可以看到所有流程的可能性，并在同一个地方迭代一个屏幕。从设计到代码、从代码到设计都很重要。这个往返过程必须尽可能高质量、高效率。我们需要推动这一点，让循环非常紧密，无论你从哪里开始。

I think you might start in design, you might start in code or somewhere else. If you're in code, you can start making a prototype just to get something built that you can play with. You can do that in many ways. We want to make it so that you can diverge at some point and use Figma for the stuff that is better to use Figma with, like spacing, color, or canvas properties you can directly manipulate. Having that rapid feedback loop with direct manipulation on the canvas is clearly superior to prompting. Code editing itself is superior to prompting, and design direct manipulation is probably superior to code editing when adjusting things like that. In terms of breadth, the canvas is a natural place. It's an infinite canvas where you can see all the possibilities of flows and iterate on a screen, all in the same spot. It's important to go from design to code and from code to design. That round trip has to be as high quality and efficient as possible. We need to advance that and have the loop be really tight, no matter where you start.

明白了。希望在这个过程中什么都不会丢失。

Got it. And hopefully nothing gets lost along the way.

是的，高质量的部分——我们一直在提升质量，确保它越来越好。

Yeah, the high quality part — we are always increasing the quality and making sure it gets better and better.

好的。我现在要问一个棘手的问题。有一些初创公司看起来像 Figma，但有一些功能，比如你可以输入提示词“设计一个狗狗咖啡馆网站”，然后一群 AI 智能体就会进来开始设计。看起来很厉害，之后你还可以手动编辑。既然 Figma 是首选的设计工具，你怎么看这些？很多设计师对基于提示词的设计很反感——他们觉得这威胁到自己的工作或手艺。你怎么看待这一切？

Okay. I'm going to ask you a tough question now. There are some startups that look like Figma but have features where you can put in a prompt like 'design a dog cafe website' and a swarm of AI agents comes in and starts designing. It looks impressive, and you can manually edit afterwards. Since Figma is the go-to design tool, how do you think about that? A lot of designers are averse to prompt-based design — they feel it threatens their job or craft. How do you think about all this?

把提示词的输出当作最终结果是一个错误。无论是通过画布上的多个智能体来探索发散的可能性，它们为你描绘出可能性空间，然后你从喜欢的可能性开始迭代——这可以是视觉风格、不同的信息架构、不同的流程。这取决于智能体的能力。最终，你是评判者。你来判断什么是好的、值得探索的，因为可能性几乎是无限的。你在试图找出该看哪条路，如果能借助智能体做更多探索，那很好。媒体生成也是类似的故事。当你做创意工作时，你不会把第一个提示词当作最终结果。相反，你把第一个提示词当作黏土来塑造，通过一个过程把它变成你想要的样子。当你把这些工作流程看作一个迭代过程时，有很多可能性。你先发散，然后砍掉一些分支，再继续完善。

It's a mistake to think of the output of a prompt as a final result. Whether it's exploring divergent possibilities through lots of agents on a canvas that paint the possibility space for you, and then you iterate from there with the possibilities you like — that could be visual style, different structures of IA, different flows. It's limited by how good the agent is. Ultimately, you're the judge. You figure out what is good and worth exploring, because the possibilities are almost infinite. You're trying to figure out what path to look at, and if you can do more exploration with the help of agents, great. A similar story is with media generation. When you're doing creative work, you're not going to take the first prompt as your final result. Instead, you take that first prompt like clay that you mold and shape, and put it through a process to get it where you want. There are many possibilities when you think of these workflows as an iterative process. You diverge, then cut off some branches, then continue and refine.

有些 vibe 编程工具让你输入一个提示词，然后构建整个技术栈——后端、数据库，所有东西——然后砰，应用就出来了。但从来不会一次就做对，之后修改反而更费劲，因为有很多不必要的代码。这就是你说的意思。

Some vibe coding tools let you put in a prompt and build the full stack — backend, database, everything — and then boom, here's the app. But it never gets it right in one shot, and then it's actually more work to change it afterwards because there's all this unnecessary code. That's what you're saying.

是的，我认为像 Figma Make 这样的东西的机会在于如何让它更强大、更发散。现在它非常线性，与我说的相反。Figma 画布非常发散，默认让你探索——那是引力所在。最终，关键在于如何结合代码和画布的力量，让它们成为“和”而不是“或”。需要把它们结合在一起，而不是“你可以写代码或者做设计”。相反，你想要那个紧密的循环。

Yeah, I think the opportunity with something like Figma Make is how to make it more powerful and more divergent. Right now it's very linear, the opposite of what I'm saying. The Figma canvas is very divergent and lets you explore by default — that's the gravitational pull. Ultimately, it's about how to combine the power of code and canvas so that it's an 'and', not an 'or'. It needs to bring them together rather than being like 'you can be in code or you can design'. Instead, you want that tight loop.

所以你并不坚持人们应该从画布还是 Make 或其他什么地方开始。只要能探索想法就行。

So you're not really opinionated about whether people should start in the canvas or Make or whatever. It's just whatever it takes to explore the idea.

我觉得就是开始做。做点什么，写在纸上、文档里，把设计拼起来，做个原型。一旦你开始了，你就会想让它变得更好。至少我是这样。当我看到什么东西时，我会想“太好了，怎么让它更好？”然后问题就是：现在是不是让它更好的时机？我们是不是该把它推出去？你需要推动什么？什么才是正确的方法？但有一个你可以尝试和使用的立足点是有帮助的。就在这周，我参加了一个设计师评审，我们的一位设计师给我和我们的首席设计官 Lord Anna 看了一系列概念，探索一个我们很兴奋的问题。我们基本上说：“你在整体思考这个问题，这很好，但就在你给我们展示的东西的三分之一处停下来吧。”

I think it's just start. Do something, get something on paper, in a doc, put a design together, make a prototype. As soon as you get started, you're going to want to make it better. At least I do. When I see something, I think 'Great, how can I make it better?' Then there's the question of whether it's the right time to make it better, should we get it out, what do you have to push on, and what's the right approach. But having any stake in the ground that you can try and use can be helpful. Even this week, I had a designer review where one of our designers brought me and our chief design officer, Lord Anna, a bunch of concepts exploring a problem we're excited about. We basically said, 'You're thinking about this holistically, that's great, but stop about a third of the way through what you just showed us.'

你知道，那三分之二的设计，你最终可能会做到那里，但就像你探索的前三分之一，已经足够现在去制作原型了。你会从使用中学习。所以去做吧，做起来很快。然后一旦你了解了正在创建的系统的物理特性，再从这里探索更多选项。是的，也许我们也可以谈谈公司文化。我总觉得当有很多内部探索却不跟真实用户交流或向真实客户展示时，我会犹豫。人们自然倾向于那样做，老兄。就像，哦，我们要把它呈现给 Dylan，所以让我们在给他看之前先做五轮内部评审。然后你永远不知道这是否正确。你是怎么管理的？你怎么阻止这种情况，或者你认为这是正确的做法？或者你怎么让客户反馈循环更快，老兄？

You know, those two thirds of the design, you might end up there, but like this first one third that you explored, like that is enough to go prototype now. And you're going to learn from using it. So go make it. It'll be fast to make. And then go and explore more options from there once you know sort of the physics of the system that you're creating. Yeah, I maybe just we talk about company culture a little bit too. Like I I always kind of hesitate when there's like a lot of internal exploration without talking to real users or showing the stuff to real customers. And like there's like a natural tendency to do that, man. Like there's like just like, you know, oh we're going to present it to Dylan. So let's let's do like five rounds of internal reviews before he sees anything. And then you never know if this is the right thing or not. Like how how do you how do you manage it? Like how do you do you how do you discourage this or do you think this is the right thing to do? Or like how do you get the customer feedback loop going faster, man?

是的，永远不要跟客户交流。20 轮内部评审。对，对，很好。不，我的意思是我认为恰恰相反。我认为我们一直在跟客户交流。我们总是努力确保设计师和非设计师都有机会了解客户的需求。我们有一个很棒的研究团队，一个很棒的支持团队，一个很棒的销售团队。产品工程和设计之外有很多职能，实际上在功能上也是产品工程和设计的一部分。我认为研究肯定应该包括在内。然后如果你让销售以正确的心态运作，支持以正确的心态运作，他们也会带来洞察。我看到我们的研究团队以令人难以置信的方式使用 Figma Make。这样他们就不只是说，哦，这是我的洞察，我做了个报告。而是说，这是一个功能原型，我认为它能解决用户当前的需求，或者甚至不止一个需求，而是五个我们可以探索的原型。或者，这是我们考虑添加的新评估。在支持方面，人们在构建内部工具，弄清楚如何真正推进流程。销售也在熟悉如何在这里构建。你知道，大约 60% 的设计是由非设计师创建的。我认为让更多 PM 也参与进来非常令人兴奋。如果你是一个 PM，你认为你的工作是制作文档和幻灯片供上级评审和对齐，那么你会喜欢我们现在所处的这个新世界。你也可以制作东西了。

Yeah, never talk to customers. 20 rounds of internal review. Yeah, yeah, great. No, I mean I think the opposite. I think that we're always talking with customers. We're always trying to make sure the designers non-designers alike are having a chance to learn about what customer needs are. We have an amazing research team. We have an amazing support team. We have an amazing sales team. Like uh there's so many functions outside of product engineering design that are, you know, functionally part of product engineering design. I mean I I think research should be included in those. In that set for sure. And then if you get sales to be operating in the right headspace, support to be operating in the right headspace, they're bringing insights too. I mean, I'm seeing our research team use Figma make in incredible ways. So that they can rather than just like, oh yeah, here are my insights. I've made a report. It's like here's a functioning prototype for what I think would address the needs that users have right now or or maybe not even just one need, it's like five. prototypes that we can explore. Or, you know, here's a new eval that we're considering adding. And on the support side, people are building like internal tools and figuring out how to actually advance processes. And sales as well as really getting familiar with the ways to go build here. I mean, you know, something like 60% of these designs are being created by non-designers. And I think that it's really exciting about make how more PMs are getting involved in the process, too. You know, if you're a PM and you think that your job is to make documents and slide decks for upwards review and alignment, like you know, you're going to love this new world that we're in. You get to make things, too.

对，对。你知道，你不再需要那样看待自己了。公司文化各不相同。我尊重并承认这一点，但我想说的是，很多文化正在改变。我认为人们需要看到组织中的领导者也在制作东西。这才能激发并真正创造转折点。那么，你如何鼓励产品团队去跟客户交流，或者如果还没发生，如何让他们不要为了跟你评审而疯狂做内部准备？你是怎么尝试做到这一点的？

Yeah, yeah. And you know, you don't have to think about yourself that way anymore. Company cultures are different. I respect and acknowledge that and I think what I will say though is that so many are changing. I think that people need to see that the leaders in their organization are making things, too. And that is what inspires and actually creates the inflection. So how do you like like encourage the product teams to like not you know, like to talk to customer or maybe it's not happening already, but but to like not go crazy on the internal prep to have a review with you. How do How do you do you try to do that?

是的。我的意思是，每当我听到很多轮评审，或者即使只有两三轮，我就会说，只要我不是瓶颈，就直接拿过来。而且我认为我不需要看所有东西。如果你真的想快速前进，你不能让一个人成为所有事情的瓶颈，对吧？有些东西如果我们改变，会真正影响很多用户。所以，如果你要改变 Figma 设计产品的核心内容，是的，我应该看看，确保因为我们有大量上下文，我们在为客户做正确的事情。你必须让这个循环变快，我一直在努力更快，但我认为迭代最快、团队学习最多的时候，是团队能够处于这些快速循环中的时候。所以如果你在循环中设置障碍，那就不理想了。我并不是说我们完美。我们也在更新和学习，就像其他所有人一样。我的推动是试图确定我们需要在哪里做什么，以及如何达到整体学习的快速循环。我认为在结构上，找到让团队内部创建原型并分享的方法，减少在用户面前展示的压力，避免那种长期承诺的感觉。这是一个技巧。我认为制作很多东西是另一个技巧。如果你不确定该往哪个方向走，大量制作原型是一种学习方式。然后你可以反其道而行之。你可以直接把它们放在客户面前。比如，这里有五个想法，你觉得怎么样？你会得到很多反馈，没有人会认为你永远承诺朝这个方向走，因为你刚刚展示了五个不同的想法。所以你可以朝任何一个方向走，但你必须最大化学习。

Yeah. I mean, whenever I hear about lots of rounds or whatever or even if it's just two or three, it's like just just bring it directly as long as I'm not the rate limiter. And also I think there's not I don't have to see everything. Um you know, if you're actually going to go fast, you you can't have one person be the bottleneck on everything, right? There's some stuff that if we change it, it will really affect a lot of users. So like, you know, if you're going to change like a core thing about the product for Figma design, yeah, I should see it and make sure that just because I've got a lot of context there, that we're doing the right thing for our customers. And you know, you got to make that loop fast and I'm always trying to get faster, but I think that the best times where you're iterating fastest and the team is learning the most are when the team is able to be in these rapid cycles. So if you're putting like a block in the cycle, that is not ideal. And I'm not saying that we're perfect. Like we are updating and learning just like every else is. That's my push is to try to determine where we need to do what and how to get to that rapid cycle overall of learning. And I think structurally finding ways for teams to create prototypes internally and share them have less pressure about getting in front of users in a way that's going to be like a long-term commitment. That is one hack. I think that, you know, making lots of things is another hack. You know, if you're not sure about the direction you should go, lots of prototyping is one way to learn. And then you can it's the opposite. You can put them right in front of customers. It's like, here are five ideas. What do you think? And you'll get a lot of feedback and no one will think that you're like committed forever to going in this direction because you just showed them five different ideas. So you can go in either direction there, but you just have to maximize learning.

明白了。你知道，Figma Config 是我最喜欢的会议之一，那里总有一些重大的产品发布。但我觉得最近世界变化太快了，我很好奇你的路线图实际上有多长？因为人们总是说，嘿，你得有一个两年的路线图。但我完全不知道两三年后会发生什么，你知道吗？或者你仍然需要有一个愿景观点，或者你如何平衡长期和短期？

Got it. And and you know, Figma config is one of my favorite conferences and um there's always some big product announcements there. But I think lately the world has changed so fast that like I'm I'm I'm curious how long your road map actually is, you know? Cuz like like people keep saying like, hey, you got to have like a two-year road map. And I I just have no no idea what the hell is going to happen in two or three years, you know? Or do you still have to have a point of view of the vision or how do you balance long-term and short-term?

我认为在我们公司有些领域，我们以非常长期的方式在项目上工作，这些项目非常困难且非常确定。明白了。它们可能有一个非确定性的组成部分，但确定性大于不确定性。这些项目实际上可以长期规划。另一方面，有些东西你只需要观察发展并非常快速地做出反应。反应越快越好。你必须让自己能够做到这一点。我认为我们去年的速度非常强劲。我们发布了大约 200 个功能，也花了不少预算。这些都是学习。今年我认为我们会做更多，至少在规模上。也许会有一些更大的举措。

I think that there's like areas of our company where we're working in these very long-term ways on projects that are very hard and very deterministic. Got it. And they might have like a non-deterministic component, but much more deterministic than not. And those are ones where you know, you can actually kind of plan it for the long term. And then on the other side, it's like, yeah, there's there's stuff where you just have to be watching what's developing and reacting really really rapidly. And the faster you can react, the better. You have to set yourself up to be able to do that. Um I think the velocity that we had last year was really strong. I mean, I think we did we shipped something like 200 features and we spent our budget line quite a bit as well. And that's all learning. And this year I think we're going to do a lot more, you know, at least in terms of magnitude. Perhaps there will be some initiatives that are bigger.

而且光说“哦，我们有 200 个功能，今年要做到 1000 个”是不够的，没人想听这个。那可能只是不必要的复杂性。

And because it's not enough to say, 'Oh yeah, 200 features and this year we'll do 1,000 features.' No one wants to hear that. That could be unnecessary complexity.

对，对。但我认为我们做的事情在用户影响力上会比去年更大。

Yeah, yeah. But I think the magnitude of what we do will be even greater than last year in terms of its impact on users.

太棒了，这非常令人兴奋。我有一个快速的产品反馈给你。作为产品经理，我之前在推特上说过，所以可能不意外，但对设计师来说可能是个尖锐观点。我觉得像设计系统甚至自动布局这些东西，作为 Figma 新手，反而限制了我移动元素和做疯狂事情的能力。我理解它的目的是保持一致性和易用性。但你是否感受到创造力和一致性之间的这种张力，甚至是设计师与其他类型用户之间的张力？

Awesome. Yeah, that's super exciting. I have a quick product feedback for you. As a PM, I've tweeted about this before, so it's probably not a surprise, but this might be a hot take for designers. I feel like stuff like design systems and even auto layout kind of just constrains my ability as a beginner in Figma to actually move stuff around and do crazy things. I understand the point is to be consistent and easy to use. But do you feel this tension between creativity and consistency, or even designers versus other types of users?

是的，我认为结构越多，你就越不知道如何驾驭它。它让你无法像在一切都是扁平、可以随意移动的世界里那样流畅地工作。所以这是一种内在的张力。自动布局框架或嵌套自动布局中的结构，同时可能比你代码库中的结构更少，对吧？所以这里面有层次。但我认为核心张力是：如何让人们尽可能自由、尽可能处于数据流中，同时又能创建结构化的方式，让事情真正运作并提高效率。在自动布局中，你确实能看到有经验的人能很快掌握。这是一个学习曲线，但很快。同时，它也可能让人望而生畏，但也能让你工作得更快。我理想的世界是你能快速进出自动布局，忽略它、展平它，然后再应用它。我们还没完全做到。但理想状态是不被它束缚，同时获得所有效用。但有些东西很难两全其美，这就是其中之一。

Yeah, I think the more structure there is, the less you know how to navigate it. It makes it so that you're not able to work as fluidly as if you were in a world where everything is flat and you can just move things around. So that's an inherent tension. Whatever structure is in an auto layout frame or nested auto layouts, that's less structure than you probably have in your code base at the same time, right? So there are levels to this. But I think that's the core tension: how do you let people be as freeform as possible and in as much data flow as they can, while also creating ways for folks to structure things so they actually work and be more productive? With auto layout, you definitely see how someone experienced can build that experience very fast. It's a learning curve, but a fast one. At the same time, it can be intimidating and also make you work a lot faster. My perfect world is one where you can go in and out of auto layout as fast as you can, ignore it, flatten it, and then reapply it. We haven't gotten there quite yet. But the ideal is to not be bound by it while getting all the utility. But some things are hard to have your cake and eat it too, and this is one of them.

嗯，这确实改善了我与设计师的关系，因为我总得请她帮忙移动模块。

Yeah, I mean, it does improve my relationship with my designer because I have to ask her for help all the time to move the blocks around.

嗯，这并不理想。

Well, I mean, that's not ideal.

对，这不理想。好吧，有道理。那大家都在谈论 AI 原生之类的东西，你们在运营上有什么不同？或者你们招什么样的人？这方面随着 AI 的发展有什么变化？你们是在找那些喜欢捣鼓东西、业余用 AI 的人吗？有什么变化？

Yeah, that's not ideal. Okay, that makes sense. How about how everyone's talking about being AI native and all that stuff? How are you guys operating differently, or what type of people do you hire? How has that aspect changed with this whole AI thing? Are you looking for people who tinker with stuff, who use AI on the side? How has it changed?

是的，我认为只要你不完全排斥 AI，如果你喜欢创造东西、学习技术，并且没有哲学上的反对，你就会投入进去，想办法利用 AI 为自己谋利。我觉得有趣的是，我们现在刚刚到达一个点——今天是 2026 年 2 月 27 日——我感觉在过去一两个月里，优秀或非常优秀的工程师开始真正理解 AI 在编码方面的效用，以及它在某些方面明显比他们强（不是所有方面），以及如何部署它。因为非常优秀的工程师通常仍然比管理一堆智能体（它们写的东西可能还得重做）工作得更快。现在在代码方面，如果你足够了解模型和设置，你可以指导它，让 AI 为你完成一定层次的任务。在某些代码库或设置中，你可能让它做很多；在其他情况下则少一些。但这只是像其他任何技能一样需要学习。最终，你仍然需要基础知识和多年构建软件系统积累的智慧来正确引导模型。在产品或设计方面，我们寻找那些有技术背景但同时也具备出色工艺和判断力的人。判断力极其重要。我一直在试图找出那些处于前沿、持续以正确方式驾驭这些新范式并提出新方法的人。当你找到那些思维令人鼓舞、能以别人尚未想到的创新方式推动这些技术的人时，那很令人兴奋。总的来说，现在很多工程工作可以通过设计来完成。当我进一步展望未来，我认为我们正在进入一个设计即新代码的世界。你将通过视觉优先的方式设计，并能为每个生产版本提交拉取请求。这并不意味着每个人都会喜欢那种方法，也不意味着你的拉取请求不会被审查。但我认为你可以直接从 Figma 做到这一点。我认为这即将到来。这就是我们的方向。

Yeah, I think as long as you're not totally averse to AI, if you're someone who likes to make things and learn about technology, then if you don't have philosophical opposition, you'll lean in and try to figure out how to use AI to your benefit. What I think is interesting is that we're just now getting to a point—we're talking February 27th, 2026—and I feel like in the last month or two, good or very good engineers are starting to really understand the utility of AI on the coding side, how it is obviously better than them at some things, not all, and how they can deploy it. Because very good engineers could often still work faster than managing a bunch of agents that might write things they then have to redo. Now on the code side, if you know the model well enough and the setup well enough, you can direct it and have AI do some level of task for you. In some code bases or setups, you might have it do a lot; in others, less. But it's just a skill to learn like anything else. Ultimately, you still need the basics and the wisdom accumulated over years of building software systems to guide the model properly. On the product or design side, we look for people who are technical but also have great craft and judgment. Judgment is extremely important. I'm always trying to figure out who the bleeding-edge folks are who consistently navigate these new paradigms in the right way and come up with new approaches. That's exciting when you find folks who are inspiring in their thinking and can push these technologies in inventive ways others haven't. Overall, there is a lot of engineering work that can now be done through design. As I fast forward even more, I think we're entering a world where design is the new code. You'll design in a visual-first way and be able to do a pull request for each production. That doesn't mean everyone will prefer that method, or that your pull request won't be reviewed. But I think you'll be able to do it straight from Figma. I think that's coming. That's where we're headed.

是啊，这就是我喜欢五编码的原因，我的小应用不需要任何拉取请求，我直接合并到生产环境。这就是我进入状态的方式，它让你持续前进。

Yeah, that's why I like five coding, man, because my little apps don't need any pull requests. I just merge to prod directly. That's how I get in the zone, you know, it just keeps you going.

是的，在拥有成熟代码库的大型团队中，我不是说每个人都应该直接合并到生产环境而不做拉取请求，但我认为总有向他人学习的空间。此外，在影响复杂系统的能力方面，价值没有理由不向上移动，这种能力不能从蓝图层面实现，而只能从非常详细的代码规范层面实现。

Yeah, I mean, on a larger team with an established code base, not saying everyone should just go right to prod with no pull request, but I think there's always room to learn from others. Also, there's no reason why the value doesn't move up the stack in terms of the ability to actually influence a complex system, which cannot be done from the level of the blueprint rather than the very detailed specification that is code.

是的，而且我希望团队会变得更小，比如三四个人就能构建一个非常好的产品。

Yeah, and I think hopefully teams will get smaller, like three or four people can just build a really good product.

我不喜欢这种高度专业化的趋势，有人只负责编辑文案，有人只做设计，然后你就没法……如果你是多面手，就会想‘为什么事情都堆到我头上？’这真的不好玩。当每个人都是建造者，什么都能做一点时，才更有趣。

I don't like this whole trend towards hyper-specialization where you have someone who just edits copy and someone who only does design, and then you can't... if you're a multi-hazard, like, 'why is stuff on my toes?' It just doesn't feel fun. It's more fun when everyone's a builder and can do a little bit of everything.

是的，我反复思考过。大约十年里，我一直认为角色会融合，因为我在 AI 出现之前就看到了早期迹象。但现在，尽管关于角色融合的讨论比以往更多，我看到更多的是职责的合并。所以更多人身兼多职，但仍然专注于一个领域。

Yeah, I go back and forth. For a decade or so, I always thought there'd be a merging of roles, because that's what I was seeing—early signs before AI. But now I'm seeing more merging of responsibilities than ever, despite more talk about merging roles. So more people wearing lots of hats, but still specializing in one area.

嗯。

Mhm.

所以，我认为如果你是一个领域的专家，确实可以运用一种技艺。例如，你提到 UX 写作——我和一些非常出色的 UX 写手合作过。要创作出空间合适、传达正确感觉、让用户理解你的意图的字符串，非常困难。至少对我来说是这样。

So, I think it is the case that there is a craft you can apply if you are an expert in an area. For example, you mentioned UX writing—I've worked with UX writers who are incredible. It's very hard to figure out how to create a string that has the right amount of space and communicates the right feeling, what you're trying to get across to the user. It's tough, at least for me.

嗯。

Mhm.

同时，如果你清楚要创作什么类型的文案以及风格指南是什么，那么你可能可以用技能预先填充很多内容。

At the same time, if you have that sense of what type of copy you want to create and what the style guide is, then you could probably have a bunch of stuff pre-populated with a skill.

是的。

Yeah.

这并不意味着你能得到最终答案。你可能仍然需要推进，超越已有的想法，但它是一个起点。

That doesn't mean you'll get to the final answer. You might still want to push it forward past the ideas that are there, but it's a starting point.

是的，我认为这种将 AI 作为起点，用技艺、意图和关怀推向最终输出的心态，几乎适用于所有学科。这主要就是我想表达的。

Yeah, I think this mindset of using AI as a starting point, pushing with craft and intention and care towards the final output, is applicable for pretty much all disciplines. That's mainly what I'm trying to get across.

是的，也许你可以和 AI 合作完成 90%，最后 10% 仍然靠人工品味和技艺，对吧？

Yeah, maybe you can collaborate with AI on 90% and the last 10% still manual taste and craft, right?

我认为这取决于问题和你要实现的目标。对于更通用的长文写作，我写东西时经常用 AI，但大多数时候是为了理解那些显而易见的陈词滥调——解决空白页的问题。

I think it depends on the problem and what you're trying to achieve. For more general longer-form writing, when I'm writing something, I often use AI, but most of the time it's really to understand the obvious cliche ways of saying something—getting that blank page problem fixed.

是的，是的。我发现开始写一篇文章非常困难。所以如果我能用不连贯的方式胡乱打出我想表达的内容，然后问‘有哪些 10 种明显的表达方式？’——我几乎从不使用结果，但它总能让我动起来，让我的大脑开始思考正确的方式。

Yeah, yeah. I find it very hard to start a piece of writing. So if I can just ramble-type what I'm trying to get across in an incoherent way, and then say 'what are the 10 obvious ways to say this?'—I almost never use the result, but it always gets me going and gets my brain spinning on what the right way is.

是的，因为陈词滥调不是我想做的，我想说一些独特的东西，或者至少帮助表达我的观点。通常我写长文时，是在尝试说一些以前没人说过的话。

Yeah, because the cliche stuff is not what I want to do, but I want to say something unique, or at least help express a point of view I have. Usually when I'm writing longer-form, I'm trying to say something that hasn't been said before.

没错。

That's right.

酷。好吧，Dylan，让我问你最后一个问题。我想尊重你的时间。想象一下一年后，2027 年底。你认为我们会和这些工具走到哪一步？用 Figma，或者你可能不能分享太多，但用 Figma 或我们用来创作的一些工具。另外个人方面，你在 AI 领域有什么想法？

Cool. Well, Dylan, let me ask you one last question. I want to respect your time. Let's imagine a year from now, end of 2027. Where do you think we'll be with these tools? With Figma, or maybe you can't share too much, but with Figma or some of these tools we use to create. And also personally, what are you thinking in the AI space?

这实际上是我探索最多的整个对话——不仅针对设计，也针对构思和任意问题：如何达到最发散的领域？以及如何正确使用 AI 真正探索可能性？在更抽象的层面也是如此。我很享受探索这个过程，为自己找出帮助解决问题的系统，我希望它们也适用于 Figma。所以走着瞧吧。

It's really this entire conversation I'm exploring most—not only for design, but also for ideation and arbitrary problems: how do you get to the most divergent space possible? And how do you properly use AI to really explore possibilities? At a more abstract level too. That's something I've had a good time enjoying the exploration of, figuring out systems for myself to help solve problems, and I hope they're applicable to Figma too. So we'll see.

但我认为如果我们快进一年或更久到 2027 年底，我们将处于一个无论从哪里开始，Figma 都是可以整合事物的地方的世界。无论是构建数字产品，还是创造接触客户和表达观点的方式，我认为它可以采取多种不同形式。我们可以用很多方式将你脑海中的想法带到屏幕上，并实现所有想法。无论你完全在 Figma 中完成，还是用 Figma 和其他工具，你都可以拥有那些发散和收敛的循环，真正推进并创造出世界上更独特的东西。

But I think if we fast-forward a year or more to end of 2027, we're in a world where wherever you start, Figma is a place where you can bring things together. Whether it's building a digital product or creating ways to reach customers and express your point of view, I think there are so many different forms it can take. So many ways we can bring ideas from your head onto a screen, and enable all of them. Whether you're doing that all in Figma or with Figma and other tools, you can have those loops of divergence and convergence, and really push forward to create more unique things in the world.

是的，有点惊讶这么多 AI 工具没有做这种发散-收敛的事情。它们就是没做。还有很多要探索。我们才刚刚开始，我认为整个行业回头看看这个时期时会说，‘哇，AI 世界还这么早期’，以及它如何融入我们正在构建的产品。

Yes, it's kind of surprising how many of these AI tools don't do this divergence-convergence thing. They just haven't done it. It's a lot to explore. We're at the very start, and I think the industry as a whole is going to look back on this time and be like, 'wow, it was so early to the world of AI still' and how that fits into the products we're building.

我认为归根结底，回到对话的开始，我们谈到了智能体，以及思考为智能体进行设计的设计含义可能很有趣。但我认为归根结底，也是为人类设计。人类仍然是最重要的案例。即使对于智能体，你也必须审计它们，理解它们在做什么。如果它让你竖起耳朵、打开思路，我不认为你离你的 PRD 或团队的设计材料需要审查还很远。你可能正在对很多事情给出大量反馈，而你的数字孪生并没有替你完成。

And I think at the end of the day, to go back to the start of the conversation, we were talking about agents and how it might be interesting to think about the design implications of designing for an agent. But I think at the end of the day, it's about designing for humans too. Humans are still the most important case. Even for agents, you have to audit them, understand what they're doing. If it's turn on your ears and open up, I don't think you're probably having it far off your PRDs or design materials for your team to review. You're probably giving a lot of feedback on things, and your digital twin is not doing it for you.

我认为我们都会用可用的工具把世界向前推进很多。我希望随着我们前进，世界在视觉上也变得更有趣。从美学上讲，我认为设计行业已经陷入了一段时间的困境。

And I think we're all going to push the world forward a lot more with the tools available. I'm hoping that as we move ahead, the world gets a lot more visually interesting too. Aesthetically, I think we've been in a bit of a rut for a while as a design industry.

科技公司探索过的风格没什么问题，但我认为还有更多我们可以推动的方向，以及更多交互范式和方法，来真正为人们打造惊艳的体验。我希望这将是一个复兴时期。

And um there's nothing wrong with the styles that tech companies have explored, but I think there's so much more out there that we could push towards and so many more interaction paradigms and ways that we could really craft amazing experiences for people. And I'm hopeful that this will be like a renaissance period for that.

是的，因为探索的成本会更低，更多人能够去探索，因为技术门槛已经降低了。所以，我认为这会非常令人兴奋。

Yeah, cuz it's it's going to be cheaper to explore stuff and more people will be able to explore the stuff cuz they don't there's not the technical barrier has come come down. So, it's going to be very exciting, I think.

我也这么认为。那好。非常感谢，老兄。继续加油。我等不及想知道你在 Connect 上宣布的内容了。

I think so, too. Cool then. Well, thanks thanks so much, man. Keep keep going, dude. I I can't wait to hear what you announce at Connect.

谢谢。嗯，在那之前我们也会宣布很多东西，我希望。所以，敬请关注。

Thanks, man. Well, we're going to announce a lot of stuff before then, too, I hope. So, you know, keep tuned.

非常感谢。

Thank you so much.

谢谢。

Thank you.