Are We Designing a Better Future, Or Just a Faster One?  

by Stamatina Kiriazou

“What does the industry really look like after graduation?” For me, the honest answer is: not a straight line. It’s a series of moments where you learn, and then learn again.

After graduating from LSDM, I finally had the language to describe something I had already been practising for years: understanding people. Before becoming a designer, I worked in customer experience, where I saw how people behave under pressure, how fear often hides behind anger, and how clarity can calm even the most difficult situations. When I moved into design three years ago, I brought that human understanding with me. Since then, every brief has started with the same question: who is this for, and what does it cost them if we get it wrong?

That is why I disagree with the myth that designers “just make things pretty.” Human-centred design is about usefulness, usability, and understanding people in their real context. If design were only decoration, why would accessibility, safety, and human well-being be part of the job? 

For the past three years, I have worked in the aviation training industry, where technology has to prove its value. Here, you cannot just “move fast and break things,” because safety and trust are on the line.

In aviation maintenance training, VR and AR are no longer experimental. They are becoming part of how people learn complex, high-risk tasks. Japan Airlines developed HoloLens proof-of-concept programmes to support training for engine mechanics and flight crew trainees.  https://news.microsoft.com/transform/japan-airlines-creates-yet-another-first-class-experience-this-time-using-microsoft-hololens/   Lufthansa Technik describes using a virtual aircraft and VR/AR to shift parts of practical training into the classroom https://www.lufthansa-technik.com/en/augmented-reality  Boeing documented AR use that allowed electricians to view 3D schematics hands-free in confined spaces, reducing cognitive overload and fatigue, improving first-time pass quality from 50% to 97%, and reducing overall job time. https://www.nsc.org/getmedia/6f79b8a2-7b4b-4387-8c15-e56bd7b63551/boeing-augmentedreality.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopT9EpGUZxIUdsaJpQjAD_TCOuPOHpiSnjNS75UfwISyUmxHcqO

What this shows is that the industry is not only investing in new technology; it is changing the kind of professionals it needs. Aviation training now needs people who understand technology, learning, and human behaviour at the same time. Not just technicians. Not just designers. But professionals who can design learning experiences, systems, and communication that help people understand complex information in high-risk environments.

This means the designer today has to be adaptable, multidisciplinary, and comfortable with new technologies. The question is not “Can you design something that looks good?” but “Can you design something that works, that teaches, that reduces error, that helps people perform better?” So, the industry is not asking designers to compete with technology. It is asking for designers who can understand technology and design for humans at the same time.

And this is exactly where the conversation about AI begins.

I’ll be honest: sometimes I feel overwhelmed by the way AI is framed, like a countdown to the end of designers. But I do not believe AI can design our world better than we can, because AI simply does not have empathy. 

Research on artificial empathy separates cognitive empathy (modelling perspective) from emotional and compassionate empathy (feeling and caring) and notes that AI cannot experience emotional empathy as humans do https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/16/12/1074 And when people say AI “understands”, we need precision: influential NLP research argues that a system trained only on linguistic form (string prediction) has no way to learn meaning and communicative intent. https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.463.pdf  That matters, because design is not a single output; it’s a relationship with real people and real consequences.

The bigger risk I see isn’t only job loss; it’s judgment loss. AI will give you what you ask for, but you still need to know what to ask, and why. Evidence is emerging that high reliance can push people toward cognitive offloading. A CHI 2025 survey of knowledge workers found that higher confidence in GenAI was associated with less critical thinking, and that critical thinking often shifts toward verification and “task stewardship”.  https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_thinking_survey.pdf Other research reports a negative relationship between frequent AI tool use and critical thinking skills, mediated by cognitive offloading. https://aclanthology.org/P19-1355/ 

AI also brings costs beyond subscription fees, including time for verification, privacy risks, and energy consumption. Researchers have reported that training large NLP ( Natural Language Processing ) models can require substantial computational resources, leading to both financial and environmental costs. 

This is why education matters now more than ever. People need to understand what AI is, how to use it, and what the risks are. UNESCO warns that generative AI is advancing faster than national regulation, leaving data privacy unprotected and educational institutions unprepared. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research . So, what do we do: panic, or learn with intention?

Companies need to educate staff in AI as an ongoing capability: how to evaluate outputs, spot bias and hallucination risk, protect sensitive data, and decide when not to use AI. Design education must integrate AI, while doubling down on what can’t be automated: research, critical thinking, ethics, and empathy.

At the macro level, the IMF estimates that nearly 40% of global employment is exposed to AI and warns that this transition can deepen inequality if readiness and access are uneven. https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2024/01/14/ai-will-transform-the-global-economy-lets-make-sure-it-benefits-humanity
So, I want to ask, out loud: are we building a better future, or just a faster one?

Who gets left behind when tools are expensive, change is constant, and stress keeps rising? And if designers do not help shape how AI is used, ethically, inclusively, human-first, then who will?

For me, the answer isn’t to fight AI. It’s to learn it, question it, and design the boundaries around it,  because design was never about the designer. It’s about the people next to us.

Author: Stamatina Kiriazou

London School of Design and Marketing Alumna and Creative Experience Designer
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stamatinakiriazou/