You think the job stays the same, and a robot will do it cheaper. The more important question is whether the recipient—for lack of a better word—is changing.
If AI agents increase their operating scale, then design will not be only communication between brand and human. I am not certain, but I think it will be more communication between brand AI, which reads structure. Yes, that means creativity will not affect this system in the way we romanticize today. It will work with data.
Who is the audience for design, and is it still human?
That is the level underneath the panic about tools.
What is the new unit of brand value?
Right now, you are debating whether AI can make a logo as good as a human. A better debate would be: what makes the brand valuable in an environment where the logo may never be seen by the person making the purchase decision?
It may be that the value of design is shifting from expressing creativity to being able to be understood by a system. I do not even want to think about how this will affect pricing.
Who controls the criteria?
Research shows people moderately trust Google AI search results; in the future, whoever defines what signals AI systems use to rank creatives, agencies, and studios will effectively control market access.
This one is about policy and infrastructure—way beyond the tools question.
African studios should be in that conversation, and loudly. The default criteria will be built around Western platform data: think Clutch reviews, Behance likes, English-language case studies. That will disadvantage studios that built credibility through networks and relationships rather than platforms.
What happens to the middle of the market?
AI raises the standards dramatically. You are debating whether AI eliminates designers when the more precise issue is that AI collapses the mid-tier creatives: the studios that are competent, reliable, and often priced moderately, that win in execution rather than thinking.
What AI cannot do is generate genuine strategic insight—as I have tested and seen.
The debate should be how the industry creates a new baseline around those standards, and what a studio does to make sure it is clearly above it. I am not even referring to quality alone. I am talking about how it communicates that quality to the systems that cannot friggin’ feel it.
Brand Signal Audit
If you want to find out why your brand is not the obvious first choice in your market, fill this form. It doesn't take up to 3 minutes. You'll receive a strategic audit uncovering the gaps affecting perception, trust, and preference in your market.
Audit My BrandThe conversation the industry should be having
After trying to condense my thoughts into one paragraph with ChatGPT, this is it:
The conversation the industry should be having is not “will AI take my job” but “what is design for, and for whom, in a world where the path between a brand and its buyer is increasingly mediated by a system that reads structure rather than felt meaning?”
This one is hard to think about in detail. It requires a whole rethink around information architecture, platform infrastructure, and the politics of who builds the ranking systems—it will not be only about craft anymore.
Most in the industry are definitely not ready for it, which is why the studios that engage with it now will define the next era.
This is the real debate. Not ChatGPT making goddamn logos.