Academic research increasingly frames AI not as a replacement for designers, but as a force that reshapes how they think. A major review by Cascini and colleagues shows how design research has shifted over the past decade from abstract theory towards real-world, multidisciplinary practice, particularly in design cognition and user-centred design.

This shift is especially visible in UI and UX. Generative AI now supports ideation, wireframing, and rapid prototyping, with tools such as Uizard, Figma’s Automator, and Colormind automating repetitive tasks and accelerating experimentation. Industry reviews from UXPin and CPO Club highlight how these tools expand designers’ cognitive bandwidth, allowing greater focus on storytelling, emotional tone, and user intent.

Research into generative systems used in spatial installations and responsive architecture points to the same conclusion. AI excels at rapid iteration and synthesis, but the question of authorship persists. Generated outcomes still require human intent to give them meaning.

A 2020 systematic review by Thoring and colleagues demonstrates how AI, sensors, and adaptive systems can transform environments into dynamic, responsive settings for creative work, while consistently reaffirming that meaning is shaped through human curation and cultural interpretation. The same principle applies in UX. AI can personalise and predict behaviour, but it cannot define empathy or authenticity within a user journey.

From the perspective of design education, the conversation is shifting. It is no longer about whether AI can create, but about what kind of creativity we choose to value. The challenge is no longer adoption, but intentionality. Authorship does not lie in generation, but in judgment and intention.

This tension often becomes visible in studio practice. AI might generate dozens of spatial layouts in seconds, yet it is the designer who decides which one tells the right story, or whether any of them should exist at all.