AI 与设计：AI 时代的三种设计师原型

欢迎收听《AI 与设计》，我们在这里探讨人工智能如何重塑设计世界。我是 Nick Martero。

Welcome to AI and Design, where we explore how artificial intelligence is reshaping the world of design. I'm Nick Martero.

我是 Dan Saffer。我们是卡内基梅隆大学人机交互研究所的教员。每周，我们都会解析最新的 AI 发展，深入探讨对设计师重要的话题，并与处于这些领域交叉点的精彩嘉宾对话。无论你是从事 AI 的设计师，还是对设计感兴趣的 AI 从业者，我们都很高兴你在这里。在今天的节目中，我们将讨论 Anthropic 的 Jenny Wen 再次带来的一篇引人深思的采访，她列出了三种她兴奋地想聘用的设计师。Nicole Alexander Michael 表示设计师现在应该大放异彩。

And I'm Dan Saffer. And we're faculty at Carnegie Mellon's Human Computer Interaction Institute. Each week, we break down the latest AI developments, dive deep into topics that matter to designers, and talk with fascinating guests who are right at the intersection of these fields. Whether you're a designer working on AI or an AI practitioner interested in design, we're glad you're here. On today's episode, we'll be discussing Anthropic's Jenny Wen being back with a provocative new interview laying out three kinds of designers that she's excited to hire. Nicole Alexander Michael says designers should be crushing it right now.

最后，Martin Wright 谈论了跟上 AI 发展的压力。我们很多听众肯定能感同身受。

And finally, Martin Wright talks about the pressure of keeping up with AI right now. Something a lot of our listeners will surely empathize with.

我感觉到这周有一个主题。那么，我们来聊聊 Jenny W 的新采访。上次我们听到她的演讲是在九月，那场轰动一时的演讲叫《不要相信设计流程》。那么，她现在又分享了什么智慧呢？

I'm sensing a theme this week. So, let's talk about Jenny Wen new interview. Last time we heard from her back in September with her blockbuster talk called Don't Trust the Design Process. So, what wisdom is she dropping? Now,

Jenny 在 Lenny 的新播客中再次提到了“流程已死”的观点，并谈论了很多变化，尤其是在 Anthropic 她使用的流程中，从制作线框图原型转向实际构建原型，然后非常快速地进入生产。当然，如果你使用 Anthropic 的产品，比如 Claude Code、co-work，你会看到他们以极快的速度发布产品，并且他们正在设计让我们快速工作的新方式。我觉得这篇新采访超级有趣的是 Jenny 对三种她兴奋地想聘用的设计师的看法。首先，我想，太好了，我们还在招聘设计师。这直接来自一个在 AI 领域工作、构建 AI 系统的人。所以这很棒。这三种类型是：块状设计师、深 T 型专家，以及这种全新的“疯狂新毕业生”概念。Dan，你想谈谈 Jenny 提到的这些不同原型吗？

Jenny is on a new podcast with Lenny and she does bring back up the idea that process is dead and really talking about how a lot has changed within especially the process that she's using at Anthropic moving away from say mocking up wireframing and really actually building prototypes and then moving very very quickly into production. And of course we've seen that if you are an Anthropic user, if you use Claude Code, if you use co-work, you know, you're seeing that they are shipping stuff super rapidly and they are designing basically new ways for us to work really quickly. The thing that I thought was super interesting about this new interview though was Jenny's thoughts on three types of designers that she's excited to hire. First off, I was like, great, we're still hiring designers. And this is coming straight from someone who's working, you know, right in the middle of AI, building AI systems. And so that's great. And the three types were this blockshaped designer, the deep tea specialist, and this new kind of idea of the cracked new grad. Dan, do you want to talk a little bit about these different kind of archetypes that Jenny's talking about?

当然。我倾向于认为自己是块状设计师，但我不认为这就是她在这里真正谈论的。所以第一种是块状设计师，其理念是，与 T 型设计师或梳型设计师不同，这种人在很多不同方面都非常擅长。她说，就像一个 80% 的设计师，能够把大多数任务做得很好，同时从事设计、代码以及构成设计流程的所有其他事情。第二种是深 T 型设计师，你有很多技能在顶部，但 T 的底部延伸得很长，进入一种专长。她举了图标设计或动画之类的例子，在这些方面你是一个真正的专家，深入 T 的那一长条。第三种是“疯狂新毕业生”，我一开始以为是“工艺新毕业生”，但不对，这是个酷小孩的说法。所以是“疯狂新毕业生”。这个想法是，一个刚出校门的人，能快速学习，不被旧的设计流程所累，愿意跳进去尝试，尽快做出东西。所以这是一个非常有趣的组合。我们在播客中时不时讨论过这个。我思考前两种时想，你要么可能成为一个深度通才，要么成为一个超级专才。当我想到 T 的长度时，我也想到你不仅可以在流程上专精，还可以在行业或特定领域上专精，比如我真的很懂医疗，或者真的很懂消费电子，或者任何真正的深度领域知识。但我兴奋地看到的是“疯狂新毕业生”这一种，你刚进入行业，充满渴望和兴奋，构建、探索、发布东西，看看会发生什么。这真的让我思绪万千，尤其是因为我们俩都在教这些“疯狂新毕业生”，我该如何调整我的课程以适应这个新世界。所以我觉得这非常有趣且令人兴奋。

Sure. I tend to think of myself as being a block shape designer, but I don't think that that's what she's really talking about here. So the first one is yeah this block shape designer and the idea here is that rather than a T-shaped designer or a comb shape designer it is someone that is really good at a lot of different things. She says like it's like 80% is able to do like most of the tasks really well. also an 80% designer who is working on design and code and all these other things that make up the design process. The second one is this like deep tea designer where the you've got a lot of skills at the top, but then the bottom part of the tea stretches really long into one kind of specialty. and she gives the example of something like iconography or animation or those kinds of things where you're a real specialist down in the that that length of the tea. And then the third kind is the cracked cracked cracked new grad, which I at first thought was craft new grad, but no, it's it's a cool kid thing. So, it's the cracked new grad. And the idea here is that it's someone fresh out of school, able to learn things quickly, isn't overburdened with the old design process, is willing to kind of jump in and just try things and make as quickly as possible. So, really an interesting spread there. One that we've sort of talked about off and on during this podcast. And I had kind of really thought about the kind of the first two in my musings of this where it's like, well, you're either probably going to be a deep generalist or you're going to be a super specialist. When I was thinking of the length of the team, I was thinking also you could be not just in a process but in an industry as well or in a specific domain where it's like yeah I really know medical or I really know consumer electronics or I really know whatever it is that real deep domain specific knowledge. But the one that I was excited to see was this cracked new grad one where it's you're just coming into the industry and you're hungry and you're excited and you're building and exploring and and building things and launching them just to see what happens. And really that really set my mind spinning particularly since you and I are both teaching these crack new grads how I'm going to tweak my courses to make it fit this new world. And so I thought that was was really interesting and and exciting to hear.

是的，我非常喜欢 Jenny 在这方面的思考。我要说，“疯狂新毕业生”这个概念确实贴近我的心。部分原因是我在教一门新课，叫“AI 增强设计师”。你知道，我们教学生如何使用 AI 工具来放大和增强他们的流程。但很大程度上，我非常坦诚地说，我不知道答案。工具每周都在变化。所以这门课实际上是让你有机会尝试新事物、新流程、新工具，然后找出适合你的方法，最终在创作一堆东西后，坐下来反思一下，说：我做出好东西了吗？这才是我想要的。我认为这就是其中的一点，我们看到很多讨论说，人们仍然想要优秀的设计，仅仅因为你使用 AI，仅仅因为你使用新流程或打破流程，你说我们不会用老方法，但最终我们仍然想要优秀的设计。所以如何达到这一点，我认为每个设计师都必须自己弄清楚。令人兴奋的是，我们现在可以在流程上更实验性一些，在工具上更实验性一些，也许我们回到说，你真正为团队带来什么，然后人们将据此被评估。并不是说这一点消失了，但我对此感到兴奋。我还兴奋的是，Jenny 在谈论招聘新毕业生。我们可能有点偏见，因为我们教很多这样的学生。我们知道我们的学生，以及设计领域的年轻人，都在担心工作机会。

Yeah, I'm a really big fan of Jenny's thinking here on this. I'll say that this concept of the cracked new grad is definitely near and dear to my heart. Partly because I'm teaching a new class called the AI augmented designer. You know, we're teaching students how to use AI tools to basically amplify and augment their process. But so much of it is basically, and I'm really upfront as like I don't know the answers here. tools are changing every week. And so really what the course is about is you having an opportunity to try out new things, try out new process, try out new tools, and then figure out what works for you, and then ultimately sit back after you've created a bunch of stuff, reflect a little bit and say, am I am I making something good? Like that's the big thing I want. And I think that's one of the things here that you know across what we're seeing maybe a lot of discussion in this is like people still want to have great design just because you're using AI just because you're using new new processes or you're breaking process you're saying well we're not going to do it the old way it's like okay but we still want great design at the end of the day and so you know how you get there though I think is something that every designer has to figure out on their own. Um, the thing that's exciting about it in a way though is that I do like this like actually now we can we can be a little more experimental with our process. We can be a little more experimental our tools and maybe we go back to saying what is it that you really bring, you know, to this team and then that's how people are are going to be evaluated. Not that that maybe went away, but I I'm excited by that. And then I'm excited too just the fact that, you know, Jenny's talking about hire new grads. I mean, again, we're maybe biased here. We're teaching a lot of these people. We know that our students and we know that young people in the design field everywhere are a little worried about job opportunities.

但事实是，这种说法在说：不，如果你有正确的心态，真的愿意学习、愿意实验、愿意看看事情会走向何方，对吧？那我们就会想雇用你。我很高兴看到这一点。我希望行业里的人也有这种心态转变，他们也乐于雇用新人。

But the fact that this is coming out saying no, I mean, if you have the right mindset and really, you're open to learn, you're open to experiment, you're open to see where things are going to go, right? That we're looking to hire you, I'm excited to see that. I hope people in the industry are also maybe some of that mindset is shifting and they're excited to hire new people, too.

是的，我真的希望如此。我最近和很多行业领袖聊过，确实感觉到有一种微妙的转变：人们非常想招那些——我不想用“AI 原生”这个词——但没有 5 到 10 年、或者像我这样 20 年设计流程经验的人，因为那种经验反而会阻碍他们尝试新事物。所以我认为这是一个很有希望的信号。我认为这些对 Jenny 的采访或她的演讲之所以更火，人们像我们现在这样讨论它们，是因为看到有人揭露这些大公司内部正在发生的事情很棒，因为那就像一个黑箱。你会想：如果这些人在做最前沿的事情，那等我毕业时我的工作会变成那样吗？或者六个月后、一年后、甚至几年后，如果你在一个缓慢或高度监管的行业工作，你的工作会变成什么样？所以我真的认为这就是很多兴奋感的来源。对我而言，听她说话很震撼，她说：嘿，三个月后这一切可能就完全不同了。所以那种探索者式的、弄清楚事情的心态非常重要。在过去一年里，她的工作从一年前做大量原型和模拟，转变为更多地与工程师合作、构建、打磨和完善。不再做那些模拟、原型和多年愿景路线图，而是更快、更迅速、更多地构建、测试、学习、回到画板。我认为听到这些真的很有趣。

Yeah, I really hope so. And I've been talking to a bunch of industry leaders lately and it does feel like there is this slight shift happening where people are very interested in getting people who are — I don't want to use the term AI native — but people that don't have the five to 10 years of, or 20 years in my case, of design process that's kind of holding them back from trying out new things. And so I think it is a very hopeful sign. And I think the reason why these interviews with Jenny or her talks kind of go more viral and that people are talking about them like we are right here is that it's great to see someone exposing what is happening at one of these big firms because it kind of seems like a black box and you're kind of like, well, if these people are doing it on the cutting edge, is that where my job is going to be when I graduate from school, or what my job is going to be six months from now, or a year from now, or a couple years from now if you're working in a slow or heavily regulated industry. So I really think that's where a lot of the excitement comes from. And for me listening to this, it's amazing to hear her say things like, hey, in 3 months this could all be different. And so it's that explorer-like, figure things out kind of mindset that's so important. And how much of her job in the last year has shifted from doing a lot more prototypes and mocks a year ago to a lot more of working with engineers and building and polishing and refining. Instead of doing these kind of mocks and prototypes and multi-year vision roadmaps, it's a lot more fast, a lot more rapid, a lot more build, test, learn, go back to the drawing board. And I think that kind of stuff is really interesting to hear about.

是的，我同意。而且对于那些觉得“我的设计流程没怎么变”或“我的设计流程远没有这么进化”的人来说，这有点令人不安。但我觉得这没关系。我们稍后会在这一集讨论 Martin 的文章时再谈这个。但没错，能一窥前沿公司的人现在是如何做事的，这很酷。

Yeah, I agree. And unnerving for people who are like, well, my design process hasn't changed that much or my design process isn't nearly this evolved. And I think that's okay. And we'll talk about this a little later in the episode when we get to Martin's essay, but yeah, it is cool to get a glimpse of how someone at a cutting edge company is doing things right now.

是的，我同意。我认为这很酷，实际上令人兴奋的是，也许再次带着这种“破解版新毕业生”的想法，以及你和我都在努力教学生的事实。我也对学生们学习的速度印象深刻。他们能快速掌握新工具，因为他们现在在一个没有后果的环境中工作。那是课堂项目，不是真正的产品——不会花费数百万美元，不会推送到生产环境，不会破坏用户体验让客户流失。现在你有一个绝佳的机会去真正探索你的风格、你的流程如何运作、这些新工具。我非常兴奋学生们能把这看作一个机会，去真正弄清楚我们这个领域可能的新东西。实际上，我有学生问我：“嘿，Nick，你读过这篇关于某东西的文章吗？”去年在我的课上，有人问：“Nick，你听说过 NADN 吗？那是一个基本上用来构建智能体系统的工具，有点像无代码工具。”我说：“是的，我见过。”然后他说：“我们会学它吗？”我说：“嗯，我原本没计划，但为什么不呢？”于是我准备了一堂课，在课上展示，让学生们使用。有几个人用了。结果这个学生在一次面试中向一家大公司展示了这个工具，而他们没见过，对吧？面试官没见过，他们说：“我甚至不知道还能这样做。”所以这是给学生们的一个提醒：这是一个机会，让你展示你知道什么、能做什么，因为你被这些新工具、你为自己开发的新流程所赋能。而对于那些正在招聘的人，我可能建议：如果你在面试别人，学习他们在做什么。我的意思是，借鉴他们所做的，因为你也能学到很多，看看什么有效。

Yeah, I agree with that. And I think that it is cool and actually the exciting thing here is maybe again with this little motivation of this sort of idea of a cracked new grad and also the fact that you and I were trying to teach students. I'm really impressed also with how fast students will learn. They can pick up new tools because they're working in a non-consequential environment right now. They're class projects, they're not real products in the sense that they're going to cost millions of dollars, they're not putting pudding pushed into production, you're not going to break a user experience and make customers run away from your product. Right now you have this great opportunity to really explore what your style is, to explore how your process works, to explore these new tools. And I'm super excited for students to be able to look at this as their opportunity to really figure out what it is that maybe will be new about our field. Actually, I have students who have asked me, hey, Nick, have you read this article about something? Last year in my class, actually, someone was like, Nick, have you read about this, you know, NADN, which is a tool to basically make agent systems. It's kind of a no code tool. And then I was like, yeah, no, I've seen it. And they said, are we going to learn anything about it? And I was like, well, I didn't have it in the plan, but why not? So I put together a lecture, showed it in class, got the students using it. A couple people took it up. Well, it turns out actually this student showed this in a job interview to a pretty large company and they hadn't seen it, right? Their interviewers hadn't seen this and they're like, I didn't even know you could do this. And so this is a thing actually to the students out there. This is an opportunity for you to also be showcasing what you know how to do and what you can do because you're empowered by maybe some of these new tools, this new process that you're developing for yourself. And then for those who are out there hiring, I might actually recommend if you're interviewing people, learn what people are doing. I mean, steal what they're doing, because you can learn a lot too and see what's working.

是的。但不要偷学生的作品。

Yeah. Don't steal students work though.

不，抱歉。那就偷他们的发型，别偷他们的作品。

No, I'm sorry. Steal their hair then, don't steal their work.

有道理。有道理。是的。抱歉。我可能是在引用那句“伟大的艺术家偷窃”的名言。但说真的，我认为这对招聘和面试的人来说是一个机会：试着了解学生今天使用的流程。他们在用什么？他们在用什么工具？说到工具，有趣的一点是她仍然在使用 Figma。我们上周也稍微讨论过，你可以用 Figma 来获得那种概览，而如果你只用 Claude 或编码工具是很难得到的——你得不到那种概览。她提到了这一点，我觉得那真的很棒。但真正让我惊讶的是她说：我用这个是因为在用到 Claude 之前，我可以做更多不同的变体。这很有趣，因为我们常常认为：哦，你可以用代码快速生成一大堆不同的变体。但也许实际上，根据 Jenny 的说法，在用到 Claude 之前，用 Figma 这样的工具做大量不同的变体和探索更快。所以我认为这是对她流程的一个非常有趣的洞察。而且我认为这完全验证了我们上周所说的。所以为我们自己和她喝彩，感谢她验证了我们。但我认为画布和代码的分离仍然非常有价值，因为现在你经常听到人们说：我根本不用 Figma，我甚至不在乎那个。

Fair enough. Fair enough. Yeah. Sorry. I maybe I'm looking in on that great artist steal quote. But no, I mean I think this is an opportunity for people who are hiring, for interviewing. Try to learn about the process that students are using today. What are they working with? What tools are they working with? One of the interesting things, speaking of tools, was all about how she is still using Figma. And we talked about this a little bit last week about how you can use Figma definitely for that kind of overview that is very hard to get if you're just using Claude or a coding tool. You don't get the overview. And she mentioned that and I really thought that was really great. But what really surprised me was how she was saying like, I use this because I can do so many more different variations before I ever get to Claude. Which is funny because we often think like, oh, well, you can just spin out a whole bunch of different variations in code. But maybe it is actually, and according to Jenny, it is faster to be doing a lot of different variations and explorations in a tool like Figma before you ever get to Claude. And so I thought that was a really interesting insight into her process. And I thought it completely validated what we were saying last week. So kudos to us and to her for validating us. But I thought that having that split of canvas and code is still a very valuable thing because you hear a lot of right now like people being like I don't go to Figma at all. I don't even care about that.

我会直接去写代码，我觉得如果你做的是个人项目或小东西，那没问题，但当你在大规模或大公司工作，或者需要适配更大的设计系统时，可能就不行了。而且我认为，Nick，你说得对，人们仍然想要设计精良的东西。他们不一定关心它是怎么构建的。他们关心的是设计好不好，而好的设计包括一致性、考虑所有边缘情况、良好的信息架构，以及用户体验等是否有效。我认为这就是 Figma 仍然在这个流程中带来价值的地方。我的意思是，这里要讨论的重点，也是她之前演讲中提到的重点，就是经典的双钻设计流程——收敛、发散之类的。她说这个流程基本上已经过时了，很多人也说它过时了。这一直是我在纠结的问题：你教学生什么？你如何开始真正思考我们正在经历的新的设计流程是什么？我喜欢她谈到的一些东西，比如构建非常 MVP 的东西，把它们推出去，学习，然后慢慢改进。她说你可以快速推出东西然后放弃，但最终会毁掉你的品牌。但这种渐进式改进的想法，我确实在很多 AI 项目中看到过，包括我钟爱的 Notebook LM，他们推出一个基础版本，然后随着时间的推移，它变得越来越好，功能越来越多，从功能角度和模型角度都越来越强大。我真的很喜欢这种构建、设计和发布的方式。这让我想起老话：你想要蛋糕，但嘿，我们先从纸杯蛋糕开始。

I'm going straight to code, you know, and which is fine, I think, if you're doing like a personal project or something small, but maybe not when you are working at a bigger scale or at a bigger company or when it has to fit in with a bigger design system. And I think to your point, Nick, people still want things that are well-designed. They don't care how it was built necessarily. They care about is it a good design and some of that good design is consistency, thinking through all those edge cases and having a good information architecture and that the UX and stuff works. And I think that is where Figma still is bringing some value into this process. I mean, the big thing that's going to be talked about here and the big thing that was talked about in her previous talk is that this classic design process of the double diamond and converging and diverging and stuff like that. I mean, she's saying it's kind of out the window and a lot of people are saying hey it's kind of out the window. This has just been something I've been wrestling with: you know, what do you teach students? How do you start to really think about what this new design process is that we're going through? And some of the things I like that she was talking about was, you know, this idea of building what sounds like building very kind of MVP things, getting them out there, learning, and slowly making them better. She says that you can put stuff out there fast and just abandon it, and that's going to destroy your brand eventually. But this idea of incremental improvement and I've definitely seen that with a lot of AI projects including my beloved Notebook LM where they put out a basic thing and now it slowly over time has just been getting better and better with more and more features and is more and more capable both from a feature point of view but also from the model point of view. And I really like that style of building and designing and shipping. It reminds me of the old, you know, you want a cake, but hey, let's start with a cupcake.

Jenny 经常谈论旧流程已经死了，或者我们曾奉为圭臬的流程。我有个问题。你作为设计师，曾经那样工作过吗？你曾经那样执着于流程吗？

Jenny often talks about how the old process is dead or the process that we were talked about as gospel or whatever. Like I have a question. Did you ever work that way as a designer? Like were you ever wedded to the process in that way?

不，我认为大家肯定都明白，学校里教的设计流程是非常理想化的，有时候你一开始就能想出好主意并且奏效，但有时候不行。我一直觉得，那个流程是在你不知道下一步该做什么时提供支持的。然后你会想，流程的下一步是什么？也许那能帮助项目向前推进一点。这就是行动中的反思：好吧，我想继续前进。我该怎么做？嗯，流程的下一步是这个。如果我那样做呢？然后我能反思吗？嗯，那帮我取得进展了吗？所以我一直把设计流程看作是在其他方法都不管用时可以依靠的东西。我从未把它当作圭臬。我认为它是一个非常有帮助的路标，以防你在荒野中迷路。

No, I mean I think there is definitely an understanding that the design process as it is taught in schools is very idealized and that sometimes you come up with a great idea right up front and it works but sometimes you don't. I always felt that process was there as a support when you didn't know what to do next. Then you were like, well, what's the next step in the process? And maybe that will help the project move forward a little bit. It's that reflection in action where it's like, okay, I want to keep moving forward. How do I do that? Well, the next step of the process is this. And what if I do that? And then can I reflect? Well, did that help me make progress? And so that's kind of how I've always thought of the design process as a thing to fall back upon when nothing else is working. So I never thought of it as gospel. I thought of it as a very helpful guide post in case you get lost in the wilderness.

好的。我喜欢这个观点。我猜当我第一次学到它时，我一直把它看作是我们经历的一个流程。我认为作为学生，这说得通，因为你完全不知道自己在做什么。你实际上没有任何这些工具。所以我们得做点什么。我喜欢你在这里说的：它是一个指南，告诉我迷路时该做什么。可以说，当我们开始时，我们常常基本上是迷失的，试图弄清楚事情。但也许随着我成熟，我开始以不同的方式看待事物，我有导师说：“不，这些更像是你工具箱里的工具，实际上我们会不断给你更多工具，最终你会学会如何把这些工具组合起来。”我记得在我做论文工作时，很多想法真的发生了转变，当我意识到，当我把某样东西作为探针放在人们面前时，我学到了很多关于人的东西，做了很多需求发现。这实际上在人机交互领域，我们谈论设计探针和技术探针。我们会链接到这些文章。这些是相当经典的文本，但这些想法是，它们甚至不像是原型。它们只是某种东西的萌芽、开端——一项新技术、一个新界面、一个新交互——我们把它放在某人面前，然后开始学习。实际上，当人们面对某样东西时，我们常常能很好地了解需求。

Okay. I like that view. And I've always looked at it, I guess, when I first learned about it, right? That it was this sort of process that we work through. And I think as a student it makes sense because you don't know what you're doing at all. You don't have any of these tools effectively. And so we got to do something. And I like what you're saying here, right? It's a guide of like what should I do when I'm lost? Arguably when we start we're often basically lost and trying to then figure things out. But I guess maybe as I matured, I definitely started looking at things and I had instructors who said, "No, these are really more like tools in your toolbox and actually we're going to keep giving you more and more tools and eventually you're going to figure out how to put these tools together." I mean, I remember when I was doing my thesis work, you know, a lot of my thinking really shifted when I was like, you know, I learn so much about people and I do so much need finding when I put something in front of them as a probe. And this is actually within HCI, we talk about design probes and technology probes. We'll link to these articles. These are pretty classic texts, but sort of these ideas of like these are some ways they're not even like prototypes. They're just sort of like the inklings, the beginnings of something, of a new technology, of a new interface, of a new interaction that we put in front of something and then we start to learn. And actually, we can often learn the needs really well when someone is confronted with something.

在经典设计中，有“挑衅”这个概念。基于某样东西引发反应的想法。这让你感觉如何？这让你想到了什么？诸如此类。你可以对各种事情这样做，包括非常政治性的事情，正如其名。

In classic design, there are provocations. This idea of provoking responses based on a thing. How does this make you feel? What does this bring up for you? Those kinds of things. And you can do this for all different kinds of things, including very political things as well, as the name suggests.

我几乎觉得，在某种程度上，也许这些想法我们在学术界已经讨论了一段时间了。它们一直在反复出现。在某种意义上，这几乎就像这些东西正在传播开来，因为现在的工具让你可以快速创建，所以你可以更多地考虑使用“挑衅”。另一件事是，我想知道，也许是因为 Jenny 工作的地方，以及任何开发新 AI 产品的人，没有人真正知道这里的好设计是什么样子的。所以一切都是挑衅。所以很容易就说，嗯，这里有一个新想法。这是某个东西。

I almost feel like in a way, maybe some of these ideas maybe I feel like we've talked about within academia for some time. They've been around and around. It's like it's in some ways it's almost like this is getting out there and because of the tooling now because you can create so quickly you can think about much more the use of provocations. The other thing too is I wonder if and this may be a little bit because of where Jenny is working and where anyone who's developing new AI products is no one really knows what good design looks like here. So everything's a provocation. So it feels really easy to go out and say well here's a new idea. Here's something that's out there.

我还想谈谈上周我们讨论的另一个话题，那就是“品味会拯救设计吗”，Jenny 谈到设计师可能过于紧抓品味不放，因为现在的东西不够好。但同样，总会有这样的疑问：品味会变得更好吗？但我确实喜欢她说的：总是需要判断力，判断应该构建什么、添加什么、制造什么。这实际上很好地引出了我们的第二篇文章，来自设计师 Nicole 的《我们现在应该大杀四方》。因为 Nicole 提出了这个观点：每个人都在谈论品味才是设计师的与众不同之处。但实际上，文章中对品味这个概念进行了一番解构，对吧？认为它是一个模糊的概念，对吧？它是你感觉到的、主观的东西。

I also wanted to talk a little bit about another topic that we talked about last week, which was will taste save design and Jenny talks a little bit about that designers may be holding on to this taste a little too tightly because things aren't good now. But again, there's always that like, well, is taste going to get better? But the one thing that I did like is that she said that hey there's always going to need to be judgment and that's judgment around like what should be built, what should be added, what should be made. That actually brings us really well into our second article from Nicole of designers. We should be killing it right now because Nicole actually brings up this idea of okay, everyone's talking about how taste is really what sets designers apart. But actually in the article there's kind of a takedown of the idea of taste, right? Arguing that it's sort of a vague concept, right? That it's something that you kind of feel it's subjective.

那篇文章其实很好地论证了，“品味”这个概念很模糊，对设计师在组织里立足可能不是好事。实际上，Nicole 提出的三个要点——吸引高管的注意力，帮助定义产品愿景来推动前进——核心就是你需要有连接。所以，你理解问题吗？权威，你懂行吗？你知道自己在做什么吗？然后是愿景。你知道方向在哪吗？你能把它呈现出来吗？这基本上就是你需要具备的。而且我确实认为这些正是设计师可以擅长的。

And the article actually makes a good case for the fact that taste as an idea is vague is maybe not that good for designers to be leaning on in an organization. Actually the three things that Nicole suggests around grabbing the attention of executives, arguably of helping to define the vision for the product to help drive that, is really that you need to have connection. So, do you get the problem? Authority, do you know your stuff? Like, do you know what you're doing? And then vision. Do you know where this is going? And can you present that? And it's sort of like that's what you really need to have. And I actually think that those are things that designers can be great at.

对吧？我的意思是，她说——我有点同意她——手艺是底线。我们不想让任何人因为东西看起来糟糕或运行很差而绊倒，但关键还是那些其他东西：权威、愿景、讲故事的能力，这些才能真正让我们与他人协作，确保产品以最佳方式被打造出来。这就是 Jenny 所说的，她现在 30% 的时间都在和工程师合作，确保推出的东西以最好的方式被实现。

Right? I mean, she says, and I kind of agree with her here, that craft is the baseline. We don't want anyone to stumble on things because it looks bad or works terribly, but it is those other things. It's the authority, it's the vision, it's the storytelling that really gets us there to be able to work with other people and ensure that it's made in the best way possible. That's what Jenny is talking about when she talks about 30% of her time now is working with the engineer to make sure that whatever is being put out there is being made in the best way possible.

但让我开始质疑的是“设计思维是独特的”这个观点。她提到独特性在于以人为本和充满好奇心，但我觉得很多同事其实也有这些特质。我不认为它们本身是设计独有的。所以我也得小心，不要把希望都寄托在这些上面，因为那会让设计显得像个“特殊雪花”，这让我有点不舒服。不过，我确实相信她说的有些东西，比如设计是乐观和包容的。我觉得这一点非常重要，能把不同的视角汇聚在一起。

Now where I started to question this is the idea that this design mindset is unique. Some of the things she says about the uniqueness is that it's human-centered and it's curious, and I'm like, well, I think that a lot of our colleagues actually do have some of those characteristics. I don't think that they are unique to design per se. So I'd be wary of hanging my hat on those things as well because it does make it feel like design is a special snowflake, and that's where I kind of get the ick a little bit. But I do believe there are things like she says, like design is optimistic and inclusive. I think that is a really important point, bringing diverse perspectives together.

我的朋友 Uday 常说，设计是产品所有生存问题汇聚的地方。我认为设计师绝对能做的一件事，就是从这些不同角度来塑造产品。我觉得这是设计非常擅长的。但 Dan，你知道，设计是所有关切、所有视角汇聚的地方。也许让设计师思维独特的一个要素，就是这种在模糊中周旋、挣扎、保持不动的能力——就是待在麻烦里。作为设计师，我不介意，对吧？在其他职位上，模糊是坏事。模糊对业务不好，对工程也不好，对吧？但对设计师来说，我们的最终角色是减少模糊、形成清晰，但我们愿意与之共处，愿意与之工作，不会因此焦躁。我认为这或许正是设计师思维与产品中其他思维的区别所在。

My friend Uday often says that design is where all the existential problems of the product come to roost, and I think that is one thing that the designer can definitely do is help to craft the product from all these different angles. I think that is something that design is really good at. But Dan, you know, this idea though that design is where all the concerns, all the perspectives come together. You know, one element of maybe what makes designers unique in their thinking is this ability to wrangle and wrestle and stay within the ambiguity, like to stay within the trouble. Like as a designer, I don't mind that, right? In other positions, like that ambiguity is bad. Ambiguity is not good for a business. It's not good for engineering, right? But for a designer, I mean, ultimately our role is to eventually reduce ambiguity, to form clarity, but we're willing to sit with it and we're willing to work with it and we're not going to get all upset about it. And I think that's maybe something that does set apart a designer's mindset as opposed to some of the other mindsets within product.

对吧？我认为设计中有个核心概念：一个问题不是只有一个解决方案，而是有多个不同的解决方案，而且你正在处理的问题可能并不是你以为的那个问题。我认为这些都是设计的超能力——我同意，作为设计师，你必须接受某种模糊性，并且能够频繁转换思维。我认为这正是愿景力量所在：我们不是在呈现“那个”未来，而是一个我们可以努力推动的未来。我认为这是设计能带来特别价值的地方。

Right? I think there is this core concept in design that there is not a solution to a problem. There are multiple different solutions to a problem and that the problem that you may be addressing is not the problem that you think it is. I think those are design superpowers that I agree that you had to have some kind of ambiguity and be able to shift your mindset a lot as a designer, and I think that is where a lot of the power of vision comes in, where it's like, well, we are not presenting the future, it is a future that we could be driving towards. I think that is a place that design can bring a really particular kind of value.

是的，Dan，你让我想到了一本书。Norman Bel Geddes 写的《地平线》，讲的是设计师和愿景呈现。Bel Geddes 呈现了城市和汽车的未来愿景，其中很多后来真的实现了。我们确实有了那些东西。有人可能会说那个愿景结果并不那么好，但在当时，它影响巨大，力量强大。但这本书已经绝版了。我有一本，是在网上买的，纸张很差，排版也很糟糕。但这是我很久以前读过的，真正启发了我思考：作为设计师，拥有更宏大、更广阔的愿景意味着什么。这就是为什么我认为，当 Jenny 谈到和工程师坐下来时，你需要能够传达那个愿景，让每个人都认同。我认为这是优秀设计师可以发挥的地方，但也是优秀的产品经理、公司里任何优秀的人都可以做到的。任何能做到这一点的人，我认为这是今天需要培养的技能。

Yeah, Dan, you're making me think actually. There's a book by Norman Bel Geddes called Horizons, which is really about the designer and presenting vision. Now, Bel Geddes presents the vision of the future of cities and autos, cars, and a lot of that actually became real. We do sort of have that. Some would argue maybe that the vision has turned out not to be so great, but at the time, right, it was hugely influential. It was hugely powerful. But actually in this book, and I'll say this book's like out of print. Like I have a version that's like some awful, terribly typeset copy on cheap paper that I bought online somewhere. But actually, this is something that I read a long time ago that really set off my thinking about like what it meant as a designer to have a broader, grander vision of something. This is why I think when Jenny's talking about sitting down with engineers, you need to be able to sit down and convey that vision. You need to be able to get everyone on board. And that is a place where I think really great designers can operate, but also really great product managers, really great anyone within your company. Anyone who can do that, I think that's a skill to cultivate today.

有趣的是，Jenny 提到以前北极星是几年后，现在她和她的团队是 3 到 6 个月后。时间近了很多。我得说，那是她的团队，在一个快速发展的行业，一家快速发展的科技公司。我知道我最近和一些公司合作，根本不可能给他们一个 3 个月或 6 个月的北极星。他们要花好几年才能接近 Anthropic 那样的速度、增长和快速发展。即使整个公司突然疯狂地采用 AI，也不是那种公司。

It's funny cuz Jenny talks about North Stars previously being years out and now for her and her team, they're like 3 to 6 months out. They're much closer in. Now I will say that is her team in a fast-moving industry in a fast-moving tech company. I know that I definitely have been working with some companies lately that there's no way I could give them a 3-month north star or a 6-month north star. It's going to take them years to get anywhere near the kind of speed and growth and rapid development that Anthropic is at. Even if the entire company suddenly adopted AI in just a crazy way, it's just not that kind of company.

这也让我想到一本书，讲的是公司试图管理创造力，叫《管理设计工厂》。这大概至少是 20 年前的书了。它讲的是公司如何想让事情变得无风险和可预测。而设计，像其他创意实践一样，不一定能那样运作。设计系统是一种尝试，想把设计编码化，让事情更可预测、更容易、更快地生成。但总的来说，创造力涉及很多不一定快速或容易预测的东西。我记得 John Cleese 说过，如果你想要更有创意的解决方案，你需要花更多时间在问题上。也许是 Steve Jobs 说的，我忘了。某个重要人物说的。但我觉得这个想法是：能够长时间、在不可预测的时间段里浸泡和思考，有时会产生真正惊人的作品，而那种快速产出的过程并不适合。

This also makes me think of there's a book that's all about companies trying to manage creativity. It's called Managing the Design Factory. Again, this is probably a 20-year-old book at least. And it is about how companies really want to make things risk-free and predictable. And design, like other creative practices, doesn't necessarily work that way. Design systems were a way to try to codify that and make things more predictable, make things easier and faster to generate. But in general, like yeah, there's a lot that can go into creativity that is not necessarily fast or easy to predict. I remember John Cleese once saying something like if you want a more creative solution, you need to spend more time with the problem. Maybe it was Steve Jobs that said that. I forget. Somebody important said that. But I think it was like this idea of being able to marinate and think about things on longer time periods and more unpredictable time periods that sometimes produces really amazing work that this kind of quick crank-out process doesn't really lend itself to.

嗯，但有可能的是，那种快速、充满挑衅和实验性的过程，基本上能让你开始更清楚地看到问题的轮廓，对吧？

Well, but it's possible though that the quick process where you're being really provocative and experimental basically lets you start to see the shape of the problem better, right?

有可能。

It might.

是的。所以，考虑到加速的过程，这对设计师来说绝非易事，我们可能需要改变我们领域形态的变化方式。实际上，这周有一篇非常酷的文章，来自 Martin Wright，他是一位设计师，从事复杂的数字服务和产品，包括政府、医疗、私营部门和慈善机构。他们基本上写下了他们作为设计师如何应对采用 AI 压力的想法。我觉得这篇文章非常清晰，我真的很喜欢其中的很多观点。你知道，一些亮点包括：你控制 AI 进入你工作的程度。你掌控自己的流程，你可以基本上决定这一点，所以你需要思考：好吧，我该尝试什么，不该尝试什么，我掌控着一切。我认为这可能是关键，除非你在一家最终强迫你使用它的组织工作，否则你控制自己的流程，你设定工作方式，你需要找出最适合你的方法。

Yeah. So, thinking though of accelerating processes, this is not an easy time by any means for designers and how we maybe need to change how the shape of our field is changing. And actually this week there was a really cool article from Martin Wright who's a designer that works on complex digital services and products including things like government, healthcare, private sector, charity. And they basically wrote up their thoughts on how they're dealing with the pressure to adopt AI as a designer. And I thought that this article was super cogent and just I really liked a lot of the thoughts here. You know, some of the highlights was off to the front like you control how much AI enters your work. You are in control of your process and you can basically decide that and so you need to be thinking about right well okay what do I try what do I not try and I'm in control right and I think that's maybe something where I mean unless you work in an organization that's forcing you to use this in the end right you control your process you set how you work and you need to figure out what works best for you.

我真正喜欢的另一点是“等 6 个月”，我觉得这太棒了。我认为这是很好的建议，因为事情太多了。有太多新工具，太多新闻故事、文章、这个模型、那个模型、这个新系统。现实是，很难分辨哪些是炒作，哪些是真实的，哪些适合你，哪些不适合。如果你不需要成为任何这些东西的先行者，或者你不想成为先行者，那么等待并看看什么能留下来实际上可能非常好。如果你对实验不感兴趣，只对做出优秀工作感兴趣，那就看看什么对别人有效。让大众去搞清楚。

The other thing too that I really liked here was the second point of wait 6 months and I thought this was super. I thought this was great advice because there's so much happening. There are so many new tools. There's so many new just like news stories, articles, this model, that model, this new system. And the reality is that it is actually hard to figure out what's hype, what's real, what's going to work for you, what's not. And this idea that waiting and just seeing what sticks around can actually be really good if you don't need to be a first mover on any of this stuff or that you're not you don't want to be a first mover. You're not excited about the experimentation. If you're just excited about doing great work, see what's working for people. Let the crowd figure this out.

那么，你能在你的流程中做某种 AI 工具的 MVP 吗？你能选择在你的流程中从哪里开始融入这些工具或工作方式吗？我认为这完全没问题。他在文章中举了 Claude Code 的例子，他 6 个月前听说过它，它留下来了。所以最后他说：“好吧，也许是时候真正关注它了。”就在上周，我们一直在教学生 MCP，我们在播客里讨论过几次，而我昨天或前天读到一篇文章，说 MCP 已经死了，过时了。我就想，等等，这明明是最新的东西。我们才刚刚开始教这个。谁知道它是不是真的死了？我对此非常怀疑。但没错，如果遵循“等 6 个月”的规则，我们根本不会费心去考虑 MCP。不过我想它确实是去年夏天出来的。既然它留下来了，那么也许是时候开始考虑它了。

And can you do some kind of MVP of an AI tool or something as a small part of your process? Can you pick and choose where in your process that you want to start incorporating these tools or these ways of working into it? And I think that's totally fine. He gives the example of Claude Code in here where he heard about it 6 months ago and it stuck around. And so finally he's like, "Okay, well maybe it's time to start really paying attention to this." I just had this this past week where we've been teaching students MCP, which we've talked about a couple times on this podcast, and I read an article yesterday or two days ago that was like MCP is dead. It's old. And I'm like, wait a minute, this is like the newest thing. Like we're just teaching this now. Who knows if it's really dead or not? I'm pretty skeptical of that. But yeah, if the wait 6 month rule, we wouldn't have even bothered starting to think about MCP. Although I guess it did come out last summer. So, and since it has stuck around, yeah, it's probably time to start thinking about that.

但我也喜欢他在这里谈到的关于工作本身的内容，比如把工作放在思考的中心。这一切的重点，回到你最初的观点之一，就是设计很重要，工作很重要，人们想要设计良好的东西。这与 AI 炒作周期无关，与什么获得融资之类的事情无关，这也是我们在这里尽量避免谈论那些东西的原因。真正重要的是什么能实际改进工作，就像他在文章中所说，“每个人都在用它”并不是一个好的设计论据。速度不一定是改进。所以，如果你以工作为中心，我也会说以用户和将要使用你工作的人为中心，那是一个好的出发点，去思考如何将这些工具融入你的流程。

But I also like what he talks about here in terms of like the work, like putting the work at the center of your thinking. The whole point of all of this, to get back to one of your original points, is that the design matters, the work matters, people want things that are well-designed. It's not about the AI hype cycle. It's not about what's getting funded and stuff like that, which is why we try to avoid talking about that stuff here, but it is what is actually going to improve the work and saying as he does in the article, everybody's using it. That's not a good design argument. Speed is not necessarily an improvement. And so if you're centered on the work, and I would also say centered on the users and people who are going to be using your work, that's a good place to be and to think about how these tools start to get put into your process.

是的，我非常同意这一点，我认为这也是 Martin 谈到你在这方面也有很多控制权的地方，对吧？你控制工作是什么，系统的所有输入，对吧？这些还没有自动化。你仍然在协调很多事情。我认为我从中学到的主要是，如何重新夺回控制权？因为现在叙事可能感觉像是 AI 来了，它在接管一切。你必须这样做，而反击是：不，不，不，你选择做什么，你可以有原则地做，你应该尝试实验。我认为当我们这样翻转时，这对设计师来说不应该那么新奇，我们总是在实验各种东西，我想为什么这与其他任何东西不同？可以说，从手绘到数字原型工具，再到无代码工具，每一个新工具都改变了我们的工作方式。归根结底，仍然是我们一群人思考问题是什么，什么真正重要，我们真正想创造什么，然后去实现它，找出最好的方法，最终创造出美妙的东西。

Yeah, I really agree with that point and I think that that's also where Martin talks about where you also have a lot of control within this, right? You control what the work is, all the inputs to the systems, right? These aren't automated yet. You're still orchestrating a lot of this. I think that the thing I'm really taking away from this is sort of elements of like how do you take back control? Because right now maybe it feels like the narrative is like AI is coming. It's taking over. You have to do this and the rally is like no no no you choose what you do you can do this in a principled way you should probably experiment and I think when we flip it that way that shouldn't be that new or novel to designers we're always experimenting with things I think so why is this any different than anything I mean arguably every other tool that ever came out when we moved from sketching to you know digital prototyping tools to you know maybe then some no code stuff. I mean, everything changes the way what we do. And in the end of the day, it's still a bunch of us thinking about what's the problem. What actually matters? What do we really want to create? Then going and making it and figuring out the best way to make it so that we create something that's wonderful at the end.

不过，我认为对此有几个答案。我认为很多人对炒作感到反感。我认为很多人对经营这些公司的一些人感到反感。坦率地说，我同意。我认为很多人会说，嗯，这是建立在窃取的材料之上的。所以，对于建立在他人工作之上的东西，存在一些伦理问题。我作为一个作者说这话，我的书被用来构建许多这些 LLM。我认为有很多人立即陷入了“这让我反感”的心态。我还认为有些人会说：“是的，过程对他们来说真的很重要。”过程非常重要。如果你开始抛弃过程，他们就会问：“这还算设计吗？还是我们回到了那种只是把东西扔出去看看是否有效的做法？”我认为没有人想回到那种状态。在采用这些工具时，人们有很多抵触情绪。我认为有很多人就是不喜欢它。

I think there's a couple answers to that, though. I think a lot of people are turned off by the hype. I think a lot of people are turned off by some of the people running these companies. And frankly, I agree. I think that a lot of people are like, well, this is built on stolen material. So, there's some ethical issues for people with it being built on other people's work. And I say this as an author whose books were used to build a lot of these LLMs. And I think that there's a lot of people who are instantly like in the this turns me off kind of mindset. And I also think that there are people who are like, "Yeah, the process really matters to them." Like the process is really important. And if you start getting rid of the process, then they're like, "Well, is this even design or are we going back to doing the stuff where it's just like just throw stuff out there and see if it works?" And I think nobody wants no one really wants to go back to that. There are a lot of things that people are fighting against here when it comes to adopting these tools. I think that there is a lot of just push back on it where people just don't like it.

我认为这些观点很合理。我的意思是，我认为这些是人们可能应该考虑的事情。我不知道。我的意思是，我可能会说，我在使用这些东西时可能没有想得那么深。话虽如此，我有点处于这样的心态：嗯，我必须尝试这些东西，了解发生了什么。

I think those are fair points. I mean, I think those are things that, you know, people should probably think about. I don't know. I mean, I would argue maybe I don't think as deeply when I use these things. That being said, I'm a little bit in the mindset of like, well, I have to try these things out and understand what's going on.

但这可能是我作为设计研究者的立场。你买账了那些炒作，对吧？我的意思是，就好像，“哦，这是很酷的新东西。”这听起来不太厚道，但我也确实把自己归入这一类，因为我整个职业生涯都在用新技术构建东西，而且我觉得看看它能带来什么很有趣。我们在人机交互系工作，这基本上就是我们的全部工作：研究、寻找使用这项技术的新方法，并确保人类仍然是其中的一部分。

But that's maybe my position as a design researcher. You've bought into the hype, right? I mean, it's like, well, this is the cool new thing. That sounds uncharitable, but I've definitely put myself in this category as well because I've spent my entire career building things on top of new technology and because I find it interesting to see what can happen with it. And we work at an HCI department and that's kind of our whole job: researching, finding new ways to use this technology and making sure that human beings are still part of the equation.

是的，是的。我觉得这其实是一个非常好的观点，你说得对。我想我们在这里，也许对我们的听众来说，我们肯定站在普遍的一边：我们对这些东西感到兴奋，我们在谈论它，我们在学习它。但是，是的，有很多种看待这个问题的方式。我肯定不会把自己，或者我认为你也不会，归入加速主义阵营，那种“哦，我们应该尽一切可能移除所有护栏，只管向前推进，一切正在发生的事情都很棒，问题会自行解决”的阵营。我绝对不属于那个阵营。

Yeah. Yeah. I think that's actually a super good point and you're right. I think we here, and maybe for our listeners, we are definitely on the general side: we're excited about this stuff, we're talking about it, we're learning about it. But yeah, there's all kinds of ways to look at this. I would definitely not put myself, or I don't think you, into the accelerationist camp where it's like, "Oh well, we should be doing everything we can to remove all the guardrails for this stuff and just move forward with it, and that everything that's happening is amazing and the problems will work themselves out." I'm definitely not in that camp.

关于这一点，我还想说一件事：我认为 Martin 在这里真正触及到的，以及我喜欢他在文章中的脆弱和实用建议的，就是那种普遍存在的焦虑。我无时无刻不感受到它。我经常被问到：“你怎么跟上这一切？”我真的认为这对很多人来说是一个真正的问题。我希望这个播客对此有所帮助，而不是又多了一件需要追赶的事情。但这让我想起了几周前我们讨论过的那篇《哈佛商业评论》文章，它说：“AI 并没有让工作更高效，而是让它变得更加紧张。”我认为无论你在哪个行业工作，每个人都能感受到这一点。这就是为什么像这样的文章如此重要。而且 Martin 在这里对其他设计师的支持，我认为也非常重要。我们都在同一条船上，我们一起在摸索。我希望我们都能挺过去，祝我们所有人未来好运，六个月后再见。

One more thing I just wanted to say about this is that what I think Martin really gets at here, and I love his vulnerability and practical tips in this article, is just that anxiety that's out there. I feel it all the time. I get asked about it all the time. "How do you stay on top of this?" And I really think that that is a real problem for a lot of people. And I hope that this podcast is a help to that and not just one more thing to have to keep up with. But it reminds me of that Harvard Business Review article that we talked about a couple weeks ago that was like, "AI is not making work more efficient. It's making it much more intense." And I think that's a thing that everybody is feeling no matter what industry you're working in. That's why articles like this one are so important. And the support that Martin is really giving here to other designers, I think, is really important, too. We're all in this together. We're all figuring this out together. And I hope that we all muddle through on this, and I wish us all the best of luck going forward and we'll see you in 6 months.

但看到人们如何与这个问题搏斗的故事真的很酷。我了解自己，对吧？实际上，回到 Wes McKin 的文章，他谈到他如何说：“哦，我必须熬夜更多。我必须更早起床工作，因为我的智能体需要我。”我觉得实际上我现在感受到的最大挑战之一是，突然间我可以构建东西了，而且我在过去一年里构建的东西可能比我开始这个职位后的前四年还要多。这非常赋能。但现在我几乎要转向这种想法：“等等，但我本可以一直在构建。我本可以做出一些东西，我本可以把东西发布出去，但我没有，因为我累垮了。我需要睡眠，或者我只是需要休息。”但我想，“但这些事情可以自动运行。我如果能多告诉它们一些，我就能做到。”这实际上是我一直在挣扎的事情。我正在试图弄清楚这意味着什么。可以说，这可能意味着我需要坐下来，更多地思考并精选。到底什么是我真正需要构建的，是我愿意投入时间并愿意为之熬夜的？

But it's really cool to see people's stories about how they're wrestling with this. I know myself, right? Actually, going back to Wes McKin's article, he was talking about how he's like, "Oh, I have to stay up more. I have to get up earlier to work because my agents need me." And I feel that actually one of the biggest challenges I've felt right now is that all of a sudden I can build, and I've built more in the last year than I built probably in the last four years when I started this position here. And that was amazingly empowering. But now I'm almost shifting into this like, "Wait a minute, but I could be building. I could be making something. I could be putting something out there, but I'm not because I'm fried. I need this sleep or I just need a break." But I'm like, "But these things could just work. And I could if I could just tell them more." And that's actually been a struggle that I've been having. And I'm trying to figure out what it means. And arguably what it probably means is I need to sit down and probably think more and curate. What is it that I really needs to be built that I do want to then sink that time and be willing to stay up late for?

你已经到了这样一个地步：你是你自己的个人设计工作室，或者是你自己的个人公司，现在你必须做一些判断——回到 Jennywen 的访谈——关于你应该构建什么，以及什么才是真正重要的、值得发布出去的东西。是的，但你必须在你自己的个人生活中做到这一点，而不仅仅是在一个公司拥有的产品上。

You're at the point where you are your own personal design studio or you're your own personal corporation, and now you have to do some judgment, to bring it back to the Jennywen interview, as to what you should be building and what is really important to get out there. And yeah, but you have to do that with your own personal life, not just with a product that a corporation owns.

就这样，这是我们本周的节目，朋友们。感谢你们的收听。下周我们将带来更多故事。我们期待你的到来。

And with that, that's our show for the week, folks. Thanks for joining us. Next week we'll be back with some more stories. We look forward to having you.