Destroy All Humans: The Dematerialisation of the Designer in an Age of Automation and its Impact on Graphic Design—A Literature Review

Abstract

Digital automation is on the rise in a diverse range of industries. The technologies employed here often make use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its common form, machine learning (ML) to augment or replace the work completed by human agents. The recent emergence of a variety of design automation platforms inspired the authors to undertake a review of the research literature on the impact of Automation, AI and ML on visual communication, and its subset practice of graphic design, with a view to understanding the implications for the education of practitioners entering that specific field. This review discovered that there was relatively little research published on the topic but what did exist noted that graphic design as we have known it has an uncertain future. Furthermore, the scant literature argued for a shift in educational and professional focus away from the aesthetic and technical skills required to design visual modes of communication and towards a deeper engagement with the softer, more human skills associated with negotiation, facilitation and judgement. The paucity of literature on this topic suggests to the authors that visual communication design education and the industry are poorly prepared for the impact of automation, AI and ML on them.

AI-Assisted Causal Pathway Diagram for Human-Centered Design

“…Finally, an interesting and important point of potential misuse of CPD in HCD was raised by participants. Part of that perception may stem from general concerns that tools (especially AI-based tools) are making the design too easy-and that may be destroying design [3,70]. There are two things to address.…”

Aligning Design Studio Pedagogy to Industry Practice: Future Proofing Higher Design Education

“…Generative AI, rapidly adopted by the design industry and public [17], presents challenges for integrating into higher education, including impacts on learner autonomy, cognitive development, biases, and copyright [59]. Despite these challenges, its industry relevance mandates its inclusion in design curricula, necessitating teaching strategies that foster critical thinking and creativity.…”

“…A lot of one-on-one discussion is just as helpful as screen sharing over zoom or similar. (DE45) Although there were entrenched comments that face-to-face teaching is the only effective way to teach design, forward looking design educators commented that their classroom technology could be translated to the design profession and hence better align design education to industry practices as is noted by various critics of current design education curricula [17,27].…”

“…There is also concern in the design industry that generative AI will render some professions obsolete. Matthews, Shannon, and Roxburgh [17] questioned the future of graphic design. However, they highlight that this time it is not only design educators but also design industry practitioners who are "poorly prepared for the impact of automation, AI and ML on them".…”

“…This resistance to teaching design online prompted some design researchers and educators to argue that design education is stuck in the past and does not always align to market realities. Sopher, Gewirtzman and Kalay [16] argue that the "studio has not changed over the past century, regardless of significant criticism and major technological developments" Matthews, Shannon and Roxburgh [17] point in their research to designers and academics who warn that current design curricula are disconnected from the changing industry landscape and "that we are preparing graduates for economic conditions and cultural expectations that no longer exist".…”