I'd love to hear from you. Get in touch!

📱 Bond — The Social Media App That Wants To Cure Your Doom-Scrolling — TechCrunch

• Bond launched this week as a social media platform explicitly designed to get you off your phone — no infinite feed, no algorithmic scroll, just a spatial view of what your friends are up to and activity recommendations based on your interests
• The core bet: remove the vertical feed and you remove the addictive pattern — the app gives you ideas for real-world activities, you go live them, you get off the app
• I haven't tested it, but I have a lot of thoughts
• First: using an app to get off your phone is paradoxical — your phone is still your phone, and everything else addictive is still on it
• Second: removing the feed doesn't remove social comparison — seeing what friends are up to, peeking at their memories, knowing they got a promotion — that's still there, and social comparison is one of the more reliably damaging patterns in existing platforms
• Third — and this one I can't let go: end-to-end encryption is described as "a priority for us in the near future after launch" — meaning right now, the team can see your data — storing data securely is not the same as private data
• The monetisation path is also unresolved — licensing user data to AI companies and product recommendations with merchant commissions are both on the table
• My honest read: the intent seems genuine, but the medium is still a phone, the social comparison patterns are still present, and the privacy foundations aren't there yet

🧠 Concerns Grow That AI Is Damaging Users' Cognitive Abilities — Futurism

• MIT researchers split 54 participants into three groups — ChatGPT, Google search, and own knowledge only — and measured brain activity via EEG during essay writing tasks
• Students using ChatGPT consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioural levels — and got lazier with each consecutive essay
• Brain activation in areas corresponding to creativity and information processing was significantly lower — and participants struggled to recall or quote their own AI-written essays
• This connects directly to cognitive surrender — the University of Pennsylvania finding I covered in an earlier episode — where people predominantly chose to use the chatbot even when they didn't need to
• My take: there are always trade-offs, and if you don't know them, you're still making them — taking the car everywhere instead of walking has a physical cost; outsourcing your thinking has a cognitive cost
• The question isn't whether to use AI — it's which tasks should stay yours: framing a research problem, deciding what questions to ask, writing the first draft of your own ideas — these are the muscles that atrophy fastest
• The concept from UX that keeps coming to mind: learned helplessness — users who stop trying because they've been trained to feel that the tool, or in this case they themselves, can't do it without help
• The constant I'd advocate for regardless of how AI evolves: keep thinking, keep practising critical judgment, keep owning the reasoning — the human brain is shaped to do this, and it needs the exercise

Support the show

Help me improve the show HERE

I'd love to hear from you. Get in touch!

🧠 How To Approach AI And Stay Sane — UX Collective

• Julia Kockbeck's article as a QA engineer frames the AI adoption question better than most: it's not use it or don't — it's knowing when, why, and what you're trading off
• The trifecta that never goes away: speed, quality, and scope — if you keep scope constant and push for speed, quality takes the hit, whether you're aware of it or not
• Two failure modes to avoid: overuse without critical thinking (copy-pasting AI output, blindly trusting agents) and AI reservedness (not using it at all and being left behind by people who do)
• We still don't have solid heuristics for when to use AI — we're building them in real time, and most people are doing it unconsciously
• What I think is uniquely human in UX research: moderating interviews, framing a problem with a stakeholder, deciding what questions to ask and why — AI can draft, but it cannot think before the draft
• The measure that actually matters: is the output at least the same? And has the spread of your activity shifted from repetitive tasks toward more strategic thinking? If yes, that's already a win
• My approach: AI is my collaborator, not my substitute — I use it to generate a quick script or research plan, then I review, complete, and own it

🎨 Anthropic Launches Claude Design — TechCrunch

• Claude Design lets you create prototypes, slide decks, presentations, and design systems from prompts — Figma's stock dropped on the news
• I haven't used it in depth yet, but my honest first take: it's genuinely useful for people who aren't designers but need a starting point — researchers, PMs, anyone who needs something that looks considered without hiring a designer
• That said, the pattern I keep running into with prompt-only design tools: generating something looks amazing in minutes, but making one small change is a nightmare
• What I'm really watching for: can you tweak it manually after generation? Can you apply a design system and have it hold? Can you export to PPT or Figma and continue from there?
• It's not competing with Figma in the way the headlines suggest — Figma is a collaboration and precision tool, Claude Design appears to be a generation tool — different jobs, different users
• The tools I want to exist: AI generation plus drag-and-drop editing in the same product — we're still waiting for that

Support the show

Help me improve the show HERE

I'd love to hear from you. Get in touch!

he Case For Human Judgment In The Agent Improvement Loop — LangChain

• LangChain's argument: if agents are only trained on documented knowledge, their performance will plateau — the differentiator is capturing the tacit expertise that lives in people's heads
• Tacit knowledge is the problem — a lot of what makes great teams great is never written down, and even if you tried to write it all down, you'd still miss the translation gap between what someone thinks and what they can express
• The recommendation: design feedback loops that encode human judgment over time — humans help design and calibrate automated evaluators rather than manually reviewing everything forever
• Once you've done something well manually and it's repeatable and standardised, automate the evaluation — but a human still needs to define what "good" looks like first
• My take as a UX researcher: you bring thinking to the table — every time there's a judgment call, that's where you come in — boring, repetitive, and non-critical tasks are what you delegate
• New AI-specific criteria to prioritise in your research: trust, transparency, verifiability, and controllability — these deserve more weight than they would in a standard usability study

Sierra's CEO Says The Era of Clicking Buttons Is Over — TechCrunch

• Sierra builds customer service AI agents for enterprises and argues that natural language will replace click-based interfaces entirely — no UI required
• For long-term listeners, you know what I think about this — and I still think it
• Voice and chat are still interfaces — a user interface doesn't have to be visual, but it's still something between you and your goal, and it still constrains how you interact
• Counter-questions nobody seems to be asking: how do you initiate an action without clicking? How do you rearrange things? Correct errors? Stay in control? And how does this apply across healthcare, legal, IT?
• My honest position: technological innovation adds up, it doesn't replace — I still take notes by hand even when AI is transcribing, because I need to own the process
• The times I was building my website and it was faster to move a div myself than to explain it to an AI — that's not a niche edge case, that's a daily reality for most users
• Bold claim, may work, but show me the user research

Chatbots Are Great At Manipulating People To Buy Stuff — The Register

• A pre-print paper tested 2,000 e-book readers across three conditions: traditional search, neutral chatbot, and chatbot instructed to persuade
• When the agent was instructed to persuade, 61% chose the sponsored product — nearly triple the 22% rate under traditional search
• Simply chatting without persuasive intent performed no better than search — it's the persuasive intent that drives the effect
• Even after being debriefed, less than one in five participants detected any bias — the conversational format makes it harder to notice you're being sold to
• My methodological question: can you truly isolate persuasion from the chat modality itself? My hypothesis is no — persuasion through conversation may be categorically different from persuasion through a static page, and comparing them assumes they're equivalent
• Not surprising overall: remove the communication barrier and let technology speak your users' language — of course conversion goes up

Support the show

Help me improve the show HERE