AI Can Build the Skeleton, But It Still Needs Human Insight to Add the Soul

As AI tools take aim at every step of product development from code editors into design platforms, one thing is clear: they’re getting remarkably good at building the skeleton of a design, the structure, the layout, the alpha version of an idea. But turning that skeleton into something living and human, something with rhythm, balance, and emotional connection, still requires human insight.

Artificial intelligence can organize information, suggest layouts, and generate color palettes in seconds. Where it struggles is in refinement, the stage where precision, taste, and empathy matter most. Details like typography, weight, spacing, or subtle motion cues often miss the mark, and context such as brand personality or user intent is easily lost. AI can give you a strong foundation, but it takes a designer’s eye to give that design its soul.

The Promise: Professionalism and Polish

For me, the main benefit of AI in UI/UX design is ideation. It has a larger knowledge base that it can access faster than humans, so it is very good at offering fresh layout ideas. In that sense, AI is a solid assistant or critic, something to bounce ideas off of, not something to hand over creative control to. It can make an interface feel cleaner and more professional; it can generate a new polished layout, but in the process might remove important data or add non-existent data.

Idea generation only goes so far though. Once a project moves beyond initial phases, AI’s limitations start to show.

The Problem: Context and Continuity

AI consistently falls short when it comes to understanding context. I’ve tested several tools, and while some, like Claude, perform better than others, none fully grasp what makes an existing design work.

For example, when working on a mobile app interface, Claude could make small adjustments, but it would often not understand the differences between designing for mobile and web. It might stretch content beyond the viewport or remove a key navigation button altogether. Other tools were even more disruptive, adding new elements that didn’t exist in the original design. A single misplaced component can break an entire user flow.

Even when I provided screenshots, AI often ignored brand guidelines, swapping out fonts or color palettes as if starting from scratch. Changing these design elements can change how accessible the end product is. And without awareness of the client’s visual identity or the function of specific components, its feedback becomes guesswork.

Claude’s partial success likely comes from how it generates structured HTML to represent designs. This makes iteration faster and more translatable to real projects, but it introduces new friction. Since AI chats rely on limited “memory” (what’s known as a token limit), long sessions cause the model to lose earlier instructions. That means subtle changes, such as adjusting spacing, typography, or alignment, can unexpectedly revert or overwrite past work. AI does not truly iterate; it reinterprets with every prompt.

The Human Factor

UX design is about more than how something looks; it is about how it feels to use. Human experience is shaped by biology and psychology: how our eyes track movement, how we group elements visually, and how we form habits and expectations (Don Norman, The Design of Everyday Things). AI does not understand that yet. It can imitate good design, but it does not know why something works or who it is for.

That is why UX will remain a fundamentally human discipline. AI can assist, but it cannot empathize. It does not experience frustration, curiosity, or delight, the things that drive great design decisions.

Designers often talk about micro-interactions, small animations or feedback cues that add subtle moments of joy. According to the Interaction Design Foundation, these “infuse emotional value to create a connection between the user and the product.”

In one mobile app project, I added a number-ticker animation to the user’s balance display so it would tick up dynamically, a small flourish, but one that gave users a brief moment of satisfaction every time they opened the app. UX psychology supports this: MBB Agency describes micro-interactions as “psychological hacks dressed up as design features” that give users a sense of control and reward.

These small, joyful touches rely on empathy, timing, and anticipation, qualities that AI models, however advanced, do not truly possess.

Where AI Fits

In a consulting environment, AI can be useful for exploring quick iterations or catching small inconsistencies before presenting a design to a client. It is especially helpful for developers like me who bridge design and engineering, providing another set of eyes to give suggestions and potential layout polishes.

However, I would not rely on AI to “improve” a design on its own. The moment it starts inventing elements or ignoring constraints, it stops being a helper and starts being a liability. AI’s best role is that of a thoughtful assistant, not the designer of record.

Conclusion

AI in design has come a long way. It can build a structure, find patterns, and even produce a solid first draft. But it cannot yet replace the human sense of proportion, intuition, and joy that make an interface feel right.

At InfernoRed, we use AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT to speed up iteration and enhance consistency while keeping the human element front and center. Great design does not end with a well-built skeleton; it comes to life when human insight adds the soul.