We already have the business side come with requirements in the form of 'solutions' that they have thought up, which more often than not are Rube Golberg-esque contraptions, that you have to conversationally reverse engineer to arrive at the actual requirements.

In the future they will come with their 'ready' solution, already 'working' and be even less receptive to look at design and architecture holistically. Just make it like that. And why do you need to spend X man hours? The thing is basically already done!

I think Jane Street is an Anthropic investor, so take it fwiw.

> Claude gave me free, unlimited iteration, unbothered when I changed my mind for the 50th time or asked for a small tweak

Do you not pay for Claude?

The benefit here is designers learning to code. It was always weird to me that designers were shaping software without knowing how it was built. I'm a designer btw.

However, designing in code is technology-first. One could argue that the purpose of design - to shape the artifacts for human purpose - is better done NOT starting with the strict rules of code. Pen and paper is still hard to beat, not for anything that looks nice, but for helping your mind forward.

I’ve been using Claude Design for my front ends. The output looks and feels good enough, but the designs often look very similar and generally adhere to contemporary web tropes.

Keen to hear if anyone has had unconventional creative adventures with it.

> workflow improvements that would have taken days or weeks of engineering

It's a nice article and good point but I feel "design" in the title is misleading - the example given has an extremely reduced visual or spatial scope (something models are still not good at). The post is more about rapid prototyping.

>>> prototypes are living proposal docs, the code is disposable, and a reviewer’s job is to give feedback about the design and user experience. Eventually, reviewers still take over the idea and implement it in a separate feature, referencing the prototype but owning the production code

That’s solves an issue I have with all POC - a really good approach

I use the same approach a lot. Before AI I also did this manually. First sit down with a user and just paper and pencil, then hack together a frontend POC / demo, have them play with it and adjust until it works as they wanted.

For me building a quick (not production quality) frontend demo in code was already often faster than getting the right interaction working in Figma. And it allowed to make it fully interactive so you can catch much more edge cases on the UX side.

Now with Claude Code it's even faster to build the throw away prototype. But not a huge difference since discussing with the users and thinking about how it should work is 80% of the time. Claude maybe halves the other 20% compared to quickly doing it yourself. Faster to first version, slower to iterate if it didn't fully get it.

We are doing this on my team (I am the frontend engineer) and honestly I really miss the old way of doing things.

Written specifications are being reduced in favor of these working prototypes, and now there’s this extra cognitive burden of reading the code and trying to determine what were the intended changes, and what’s the slop that needs to be tossed aside.

We also have to figure out, should we take over this generated PR and make any needed changes? Or do we start over from scratch? There’s often a sense of friction either way.

There have been times where a bunch of unintended changes were generated and I took time to port them over on my reimplementation, and then later on it’s “oops! Sorry! We didn’t mean to change that.”

I get it’s empowering but it does take away from some of the joy I used to find in my work and replaced it with some headaches.

Even for the large products, figma is not the starting point for new concepts anymore. I start with a quick prototype on dev environment and then share it with designer for further improvements in figma or in the app itself. With every new model or agent improvement, going back to figma for polishing the ui is decllinig. If we can find a way to keep the frontend code static templates without complex logic, need for this polishing in figma will go away completey as llms can understand it one context window. With the modern frameworks designed for client side rendering, keeping everything in one context is still tricky.

At work we are now in the process of migrating away from Figma. We had spend years perfecting our Figma based design workflow. Currently we are moving all the designs into the code itself using Storybook. The gap currently is reviews and feedback which is addressed by Chromatic now.

Funnily, that's the first stage in how you end up designing "will work for food" signs with markers, more than with Figma or Claude...

You should note that Claude Design is most likely a DPO->PPO->Actor-Critic bootstrap play: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18290 / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximal_policy_optimization / https://spinningup.openai.com/en/latest/algorithms/sac.html

It's much harder to RL out design taste because it's not self-grounding, and human labelers have no real skin in the game, so this (having a human with a vested outcome in the process directing a model's work) is the best way to get LLMs better at design/"taste"/aesthetic judgment themselves. We were working on the same thing 7 months ago and then I realized that winning over designers to do this would be a huge uphill battle setting up an inevitable fall from grace later on.

What makes me most suspicious of Claude Design is that when you disconnect and reconnect later, it loses context and nags you that the product doesn't work like that. Bullshit. It's at best an anti-abuse/implementation detail (to keep you from launching 10 at once and coming back to them later) or product shortcoming that just so happens to be optimized for keeping you from continuing your design in better tools than theirs for the inevitable followups.

It's great for one shots and it makes sense when you're trying to build a vertical product development stack like Anthropic but I'm disappointed it feels more like a tool optimized for keeping you in their product than for what you're working on. If a company other than Anthropic had shipped this - it's not that hard to build a visual self-eval loop, just use Chrome Devtools Protocol to run headless chrome and take screenshots -> feed into a judge LLM for feedback -> continue - I don't think it would really have seen much adoption.

That said, AI trained on Actor-Critic with a tight human feedback loop definitely seems like the right approach to solving the problem, just not something I want to spend my time training for someone else unless I can do so with higher "entropy" ie high parallelism/optionality

Sounds like desk strat RAD work is moving to LLM gen code at JS. My recentish experience of that kind of work has been Athena at JPMC and Quartz at BoA; both Python with functional style via DAG or pixie with py ui framework to match. Which enables quick dev of the parts of trading workflow that don't need to be quick, like booking tools or EOD risk. I know first hand Athena and Qz are crufty when you get into the weeds. The bonsai framework with Elm inspired ocaml impl sounds v cool. So I can see how this approach can accelerate a lot of trading tech dev. But does it have any traction over the hard problems where we turn to C++ or Rust: near real pricing and risk across multiple instruments and markets?

Figma make and gpt designer have a bunch of catching up to do. I couldn’t even import our brand guidelines into make which is already a .fig like what are we even doing here, guys? CD crunches through ungodly amount of tokens and is really slow on iteration but at least you can get some really nice prototypes extremely quickly there. GPT beats any Anthropic models on illustrations so they really should get a grip on multimodal. Overall, it seems like we’re still super early but you can already see glimpses of what may come

I worry about Figma stock, I know some who bought during the IPO who are now underwater. Figma launched their own design agent but not sure how well that's doing.

amyone know how to use claude design more effectively I always alhave a feeling I use a slot machine

from 6 sessions and 5 projects only one template that I choose anything else is really really bad

Same here. I mostly use Figma for logos and random assets now.

i gave claude code my design system that i built in figma and haven't opened it again. it's much faster designing with your voice.

I use Claude code a lot for design too but it just does a lot of regurgitation in design too

Claude is pretty great at designing certain images. For favicons, logos, og cards, it does extremely well. For full image generation, I go elsewhere.

Even if this is ad only - are we really ready for a rug pull from Anthropic? Maybe I’m completely unaware in this tools space, but I feel like it’s last tool that’s worth (and not pricey)…

For design tools and website builders tough times ahead. Wix for example lay down 20% of staff in some countries. All due to “optimization” with LLM.

Klankers will fix everything. Right?

> Submit a feature (our version of a pull request) that looks and behaves exactly the way I want

What happens after the submission? Who reviews the feature? How long? Are there any limits to the size of the diff? Do reviewers push back? How often are features submitted?

honestly, for me, chatgpt has more replaced dribbble than it has figma.

where i'd normally spend hours combing through dribbble looking for inspiration for layouts for specific components (most of the time finding nothing), now I use chatgpt to come up with a number of different designs, then port them over to figma.

most designs produced by cgpt arent production-ready, especially for mobile. figma allows me to set proper constraints (screen size, for example), that give it a more grounded "shape"

for that reason, the actual final design is still by hand for now. however, the translation from design to implementation is greatly sped up by codex, which basically does it pixel-perfect.

all the same, still lots of tweaks needed before the final implementation is ready. design to code still has a bunch of issues that often need figuring out/standardising - font sizes, weights, etc.

this is on mobile btw, where space is very limited. havent worked on a website in a while, but i'd imagine the extra space would allow for far more liberty. i do not miss having to craft ten different designs just to ensure responsiveness. massive pita.

I'm my work as an FDE this week, Copilot did the initial UI. Feedback was given and tells were adjusted all through prompting.

I don't see how a coding model competes with figma TBH, an image model maybe but that's a stretch too.

You aren't designing.

true it is much more easier using claude design rather than Figma yet it does not produce the same output quality.

Is it just me or the bar to publish janestreet blogposts has been lowered recently?

I still prefer Figma for collaboration

And how much of these designs are used in the end compared to when they where done with Figma?

undefined

Claud design burns lots of tokens

Yea I mean okay JaneStreet. World wide renowned to be a tech design powerhouse...

> Oh no, Figma ER was actually positive, release mode SaaS FUD

Honestly, I'm not really pro or anti llm and I think there are a ton of limitations for using it to generate code, but UI has been probably the only thing I've been able to vibe code. It helps that I've done a lot of UI work over the years, but I think the combination of defects being easily visible through normal usage, the UI being a non-critical component of a system (bugs don't cause vulns or data corruption (usually), combined with the amount of churn that UI's see, make it a somewhat uniquely good candidate for vibe coding. Also a lot of UI toolkits are declarative, and I think language models do much better with declarative code.

In a way it's not much different from copy-pasting components from templates or whatever, just with more customisability. And for stuff that isn't HTML-based like React it does worse. It's also not great at building component libraries, I still write those myself with little LLM involvement, but that makes sense because the architecture is actually relevant with that, unlike generating CSS and xml-derived components, which is mostly just declarative templating anyways.

I've had decent success writing the core logic myself and then delegating the UI to AI. I think if I didn't write the core logic it would not work very well, but since it's designed well by myself the AI has a much smaller scope to work in which constrains it enough where vibe coding works. Pretty cool.

> Having joined Jane Street this past summer, I’m finding AI support indispensable. There’s just so much that’s new to me, and so much I’m not good at yet, like OCaml and Bonsai.

Using AI for things you aren't good at, or not experienced with, is literally the worst way to use AI. You WANT to struggle when learning a new language, and use reliable documentation to solve your problems, not circumvent them entirely by using AI.

This is extreme incompetence, I'm shocked that Jane Street would advertise it.

upvote

[flagged]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

I use codex

Janestreet is now known for shady trading in India and its aggressive AI trading strategies:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-04/jane-stre...

In other words, it is an AI booster. Abusing the goodwill of programmers for their OCaml involvement even though most of it was convoluted bloat and inferior to INRIA code is devious.

It happens all the time now and people need to inoculate themselves against it:

A single famous open source person or an open source involved company invested in AI suddenly posts "organic" testimonies in favor of AI. It means nothing. The person is not the same person, the company is not the same company (or is now overtly evil).