What are your thoughts on using AI for web design?

[rnottelovesowls]

what do you think? by now, i've already made clear that i hate generative AI as used for visual arts, writing, and music. and webpage design is an art, too. so why would my opinion on using AI for web design be any different?

in my opinion, "i couldn't do this without AI" feels like an excuse, because yes you can. don't listen to the techbro CEOs on what you can or can't do; they never cared about artists like us to begin with. it's perfectly fine to use a user-created template for your site and then tweak it a little. and it's fine to ask for advice from someone with experience who's willing to share it. if you ask claude to do the whole thing for you, it takes the satisfaction out of having a finished piece. and who needs that?

[fablefound]

i’m a latecomer to this dialogue, but i feel like i have a few points i want to add based on my own experiences. so, as someone “on the ground” in more ways than one…

my art has been found in ai databases. multiple times. this was deeply violating and my band was genuinely looking into class action lawsuits. it was only due to immense public backlash that the company responsible shut down the project.

we’ve had data centres proposed where i live. i think some of those proposals are still being argued. the good news is the public backlash has been so overwhelming, like “needing multiple conferences for all the citizens speaking up against it” overwhelming, so we might be able to push back against it.

i’ve worked on projects where i was unpleasantly surprised to discover members of other departments were using it. i used what little standing i had to put my foot down and say ai assets were a bad look that prompted kneejerk reactions and could impact our end product’s reception. surprise surprise, backlash was the answer.

finally, and most relevantly, i am a fan of the indie web and webcrafting. i am also an absolutely rubbish coder. my neocities is still living on a very common template, and while i do want to update that someday, i know it won’t be easy. but when the indie web newsletters i follow are constantly complaining about “claudeslop” and its telltale signs, i realize that my template isn’t that bad. at least its dime-a-dozen look isn’t actively killing the environment.

i don’t think all ai is automatically bad forever. sometimes i even hear of interesting potential uses for it in creative fields. but those conversations are never being had about the claude and chatgpt projects of the world. sycophantic slop machines have no place in my workflow. and while, sure, it’s someone’s individual choice whether or not to use such technology, as someone who’s seen firsthand what it’s doing to our art, our environments, and our brains, i feel like the least i can do is state why i’m abstaining.

[d.eastwood]

 

But let me try explain you my perspective by asking the question: why do you want to make a website? What are you going to get out of it? If you end up deciding to actively deprive yourself of the processes of artistic creation and learning, what's in it for you?

I can answer these for myself. I want to make a website to showcase my work. I understand that on forums like this, the website itself is the art itself, but for me, I don't want to be spending so much time editing and building a website. I still want it to be artistic but I would rather spend my time creating other things. With that being said, has that deprived myself of artistic creation/expression? Not at all. It's still my ideas being created.

If it's not enjoyable as it is, no tool is gonna make it any better.

I disagree. although frustrating at times, this process has been far more enjoyable because I am seeing my ideas being created far above my coding skill level.

Now generative music and art, yeah no; HARD no

oh man the AI music is sooooo bad. it can't recreate the soulfullness that comes from music and always sounds so cheap.

 

I genuinely believe there is a psychological operation to get folks to use ai more,

I don't know if its a psychological operation or just the economics of growth. All industries work like this: the more adoption the faster the growth and technological advancement due to investment. Take automobiles for example. The first car was 3/4 of a horsepower. (LESS than an actual horse which was the main source of travel during the time). BUT because of adoption of more and more people over time, the technology grew rapidly. same thing with computers, they used to be the size of a room, but as time went on, and more people adopted the technology, it advances (due to investment).  off topic -- but this is why the Trump administrations attack on EVs makes no sense. As hydrogen energy becomes more efficient, and nuclear fusion becomes an option, we will need better and more efficient battery storage and electric motors. We get there by investing in those industries NOW to propel advancement. (think about where EVs were just 10-15 years ago).   
With AI, the way to adoption has been through generative AI. more people using it to create (albeit slop) advances the technology through data and learning. it also gives these tech companies a source of revenue while they seek more advanced models.
on the topic of search engines, it seems they still have some work to do. but it is amazing to be able to copy a broken formula from Excel and just say 'fix this' and have it spit out the correct answer.

[fablefound]

I can answer these for myself. I want to make a website to showcase my work. I understand that on forums like this, the website itself is the art itself, but for me, I don't want to be spending so much time editing and building a website. I still want it to be artistic but I would rather spend my time creating other things. With that being said, has that deprived myself of artistic creation/expression? Not at all. It's still my ideas being created.

i think that it’s a dangerous game, deciding what does and does not count as art. i’m not a good illustrator and only a half-decent graphic designer, and most of my work is in the text or audio realms. considering graphics aren’t what i’m showing off on my portfolio site and it’s a tedious medium for me to work in, should i just use ai instead? of course not. honestly, if i went to someone’s portfolio site and saw it was obviously vibecoded, it’d make me wonder where else they’re cutting corners. it’s just a bit of a first impression to make given the cultural climate right now.

(also, templates are right there. thousands of website templates. blog, portfolio, webcomic, hypertext… you name it, someone’s probably made it and put it online for you to use!)

[d.eastwood]

i think that it’s a dangerous game, deciding what does and does not count as art.

that's not what I was doing at all.

[Noah_S]

I'd just assume that your portfolio is also A"I".

[larvapuppy]

As someone who has taken the time to learn to make their own site and is still in the process of learning, it just comes across as cringe to me, to be honest.

AI has allowed Ideas Guys to realize their ideas without a middleman~ no one has ever liked an Ideas Guy, but at least before the advent of LLMs, a human with actual skills had to put actual thought in to implement the Ideas Guy's ideas. Now there is no human filter in between the Ideas Guy and their idea, resulting in the mass-produced slop we all unfortunately are forced to deal with today. Ideas Guys are fundamentally people who don't care about the process. With LLMs, the process is much faster (or arguably non-existent). But no consideration is given to the fact that the process is often what makes the result actually good, and what makes the creation actually worth seeing. A creative human isn't simply manufacturing equipment for an Ideas Guy to channel; they have real knowledge and judgement that allows them to make something meaningful, along with their own style and experience that shine through in their work.

For websites, there are a few that I don't really have a choice whether to use or not. I sort of assume that they must use AI in their web design. These are owned by large corporations that have already earned my contempt in other ways, but have me in a sort of hostage situation because they are common utilities that for one reason or another I'm unable to switch to an alternative (work reasons, or there just isn't an alternative available). For these, I continue to use them.

But for personal sites, galleries, optional utilities...? I'm opting out if I know any part of it is made by an LLM. As the popular sentiment goes: why would I even bother looking at a site if I know no one cared enough to take the time to create it?

[fauxhumanoid]

To me, AI has never had the ability to create anything. Thusly, it should not be trusted to try, lest you face the consequences of its bad outputs.
Design is the act of conveying and interpreting ideas and messages, usually in a more digestible format. AI doesn't have intuition or knowledge of design theory, it just mirrors what it is fed; As a result, an AI cannot perform the core human skills required for design in the first place. It just produces a result based on what it is given. There is no intent or conveyed purpose within what it produces, so it is not what it claims to be.
As for the coding aspect, I would restate a similar message. AI does not have the spacial awareness needed to write site code, and in consequence, AI sites famously run badly, if at all, and are very prone to breaking with even the slight human touch. Not to mention the countless AI sites that have resulted in leaked sensitive information.

To sum it up, using AI in any webcrafting process is just not a good idea, like at all, and requires as much if not more work adjusting as compared to doing it alone. At least that's what I think.

[Rubbereon]

or just the economics of growth.

AI produces no income, opens no jobs and costs way more than anything else you can think of, so this statement is wrong and this is made even more evident by the examples you highlighted.
Cars were slow at first, but they had potential to permanently remove horses from the question, bicycles were also made around that time to allow people to go faster on something that doesn't require to be fed, to sleep, poop or anything like that.

Computers is an even worse example due to adoption. Video games were WAY more popular than computers even back in the 80's, nobody (exaggeration I know) owned an Amiga nor a Commodore, but every family owned a NES and an Atari. Heck even Windows was unknown and not even Mac could put a dent in the market. The reverse is becoming true as the public becomes aware of how locked-down and primitive game consoles are (adding to the fact that Sony and Nintendo can't stop crapping the bed every chance they get, also Xbox is pretty much dead) and you can play all your retro games on computers thanks to emulators. The only reason computers still aren't the leading technology is that phones are cheaper, portable and convenient, so every kid and teenagers own one.

AI has already widespread adoption and it still objectively sucks and not only does it objectively sucks, people who are forced to use AI in their day to day job hate it.

It is purely and factually astroturfed to please investors.

Comparing ethical concerns and criticism of AI to Donald Trump throwing a fit about green cars is disingenuous I'll add.

[schlime9k]

Why though? Put more broadly; did you make your computer by hand? Did you make the software that runs on it? Did you invent HTML? Did you grow the food you ate to give yourself the energy to write today? You have not created anything all by yourself, no one ever has, so why start making a judgment on that now?

Melon I understand where you're coming from with this but I do not agree, because there is a big distinction between different kinds of assistance, and what you're saying is very hyperbolic.

Nobody truly equates "I made this website" to "I built the computer it runs on from pure scratch, created my own markup language and created my own nutrients to sustain myself in order to craft an 'About Me' page." But people do equate "I made this website" to "I wrote the markup myself", whether disclosure of inspiration or templates was done is a different story that I may or may not get into in a different comment dependent on how tired I am of putting my hat into the same argument over and over again.

If I make a painting in Photoshop, I didn't make Photoshop. I didn't manufacture my drawing tablet, yet I still made the painting. If I commission an artist on Twitter to make a painting, it would be weird, and disingenuous to say I made that painting, because I delegated all the work to someone else.

Sure, the painting (or website if you don't like the analogy anymore) would indeed not exist without you, the commissioner, but that doesn't mean you made it, it just means you are a cause.

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

@schlime9k using complex media when creating media reduces the effort but also the individual imprint for the creator (both in individual freedom and visibility of his own person). To give an very rudimentary example: Using a potters wheel will allow to create more refined pottery, but at the same time doing pottery with your bare hands both allows more creativity, and the resulting piece of art will have a closer connection to the human who made it (as it might even incorporate marks of the hands or fingers of the artist).

This can be transfered on the usage of filters in digital photo manipulation: It will allow to reach a given result more easily (when compared with analogues techniques, or - and this is were reaching the same results gets next to impossible - realistic painting); however, both your freedom to control the result and your own share in the final work (both are probably linked) will be reduced.

Selecting were you accept what reductions of your own share in the final work is - imho - a part of the artistic process. Constructing an ethical problem out of this is, imho, difficult (there are ethical aspects that I find sufficient to largely boycott both LLMs and derived works, but these were discussed elsewhere). Using an filter in PS or an automated side builder* might result in an attractive piece - but with increasing complexity of the media that are used, the human behind it will become less visible - which might be what is meant when people say that AI art is soulless (an argument that was and is also brought up against digital art in general, btw). However, it is always possible to take more influence (and thus inscribing your own personality) on the result, even when using utmost complex tools, by investing time and/or energy - if the tool you use is in conflict with what you want to do, this is, however, more straining than not using the tool. Bending unfitting tools to your will might be viewed as an art of its own.

*An interesting note here: This also works another way around - when using a side builder or a filter made by an artist who poured their specific personality into it, this personality will also be contained in the resulting piece - Melons Gallery Maker or the Sadgrl Layout might be graspable examples for this.

[schlime9k]

@ThunderPerfectWitchcraft A couple things here:

The complexity of tools in order to create something is not the main issue, in my opinion, it would be how much of the final work did the person meaningfully determine . Say there's Person A & Person B, Person A uses a simple tool to generate an artwork at the type of a prompt, whereas Person B uses a really complex tool that allows them to control the entire process. Whose art has more of an imprint of what the person originally determined in the final product? I understand you're saying that generative AI is the highly complex tool, but that doesn't matter, it matters how they use the tools.

Someone can use AI "as a tool" (which I also have issues with) and others can use it as a substitute for work entirely. I can ask chatGPT for help in getting my Javascript working because I don't understand it, then chatGPT will give me the information I need and then I myself use that information to fix it without the AI ever sending me a line of code. But just as I can do that, I can ask it to generate me a whole webpage.

Constructing an ethical problem out of this is, imho, difficult

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Are you saying "the complexities of human involvement in art and creative output using new-age tools is difficult and complex"? If so, I agree. If you're however saying "there isn't really an ethical question here" then WRONG! You don't need to establish that something is immoral before you're allowed to have an ethical debate about it. That's the entire purpose of ethics. I really hate when people don't want to go into ethical arguments because they find ethics irrelevant. Ethics is always relevant. And no, just because something is ethically questionable does not automatically mean it needs to stop. We argue over the ethics and come to either a compromise or full answer depending on where the ethics takes us. Though personally, when it comes the damage something causes to the climate being increasingly disturbing, I think that's when we should stop.

but with increasing complexity of the media that are used, the human behind it will become less visible - which might be what is meant when people say that AI art is soulless (an argument that was and is also brought up against digital art in general, btw).

This kinda goes back to what I said before about the complexity of the tool not being the main point of contention. I personally see "soullessness" in art being the lack of evidence to suggest someone making decisions based on a specific vision they had for their work. Also, where are you still seeing this kind of argument brought up for digital art? Genuine question, I'd like to know because I want to understand your view better.

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

@ThunderPerfectWitchcraft A couple things here:

The complexity of tools in order to create something is not the main issue, in my opinion, it would be much of the final work did the person meaningfully determine . Say there's Person A & Person B, Person A uses a simple media to generate an artwork at the type of a prompt, whereas Person B uses a really complex tool that allows them to control the entire process. Whose art has more of an imprint of the final product? I understand you're saying that generative AI is the highly complex tool, but that doesn't matter, it matters how they use the tools.

What I argue is: The more complex your tool/media is, the less is your ability to take influence, while the influx of the medium increases. If you use a - highly precise - laser cutter, it will have much more influence on your art than using a cutting knife, even though it might seem paradox at a first glance: Using the less precise knife will force you to deal with the impressions in your own way, and it will be hard for anybody else to get to the same result - the same thing will be easy when you look at laser cutter art.

What does Person A do? Using a simple media or typing a prompt? When typing a prompt, the used AI is Person As medium.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Are you saying "the complexities of human involvement in art and creative output using new-age tools is difficult and complex"?

I say: The amount of tools or their quality one uses is not the ethical question. If LLMs would be fueled with air and love, there would be no problem to use them for whatever one would like - if the result is artistically interesting is another question. Just as I can glue two photos together and call the result my artwork without ethical implications. The ethical problem is that they don't.

Note that I don't disregard ethics: I think they should be the primary criterion when meeting decisions.

I personally see "soullessness" in art being the lack of evidence to suggest someone making decisions based on a specific vision they had for their work.

This is very close to what I wanted to tell you :). One of my points: The complexity of tools partly removes the freedom, sometimes in a very subtle way, to influence the results. In other cases, the medium used will alter the "vision" without the artist noticing.

Also, where are you still seeing this kind of argument brought up for digital art? Genuine question, I'd like to know because I want to understand your view better.

Making a search for "digital art" and "soulless" still shows some results of the pre-AI-era; among them a reddit thread:

"Tired of digital art. I wish it didn't exist.

I hate seeing the same cloned digital garbage everywhere. Digital art is soulless."

Another example would be the rejection of digital recording techniques within the black metal subculture.

[boreal cryptid]

i don't see this differently from "AI" "art" or "writing".

i know there are levels of how much people use it - beautify code for 5 seconds VS leave the program to write you the whole website for a night are obviously different in the aspect of environmental impact due of the amount of (stolen) resources used, crawling time, etc.

but as long as it's trained on stolen stuff + overwhelm web with its crawlers, impact environment negatively - i see all of it as the same kind of thing.

and as people above mentioned: i will be dubious about person's art and writings (even if they are authentic!) if i see their website being vibecoded (or idk, them mentioning it).

maybe one day ppl will find the way to reduce most of the harm "AI" does right now, like training it on their own stuff, using personal server with some alternative to water cooling, i dunno. but i honestly don't see it happening in the near future :(

[beetledragon3869]

As a warning, my thoughts on this are going to be somewhat biased, as AI and its implementation in the design world has directly affected my career and mindset around the field as a whole.

i don't see this differently from "AI" "art" or "writing".
...
but as long as it's trained on stolen stuff + overwhelm web with its crawlers, impact environment negatively - i see all of it as the same kind of thing.

and as people above mentioned: i will be dubious about person's art and writings (even if they are authentic!) if i see their website being vibecoded (or idk, them mentioning it).

I agree with these sentiments - hypothetically, in a world where these tools were A) regulated B) individual systems, trained off data that their users own and have the rights to, instead of stolen info and C) less damaging to our enviroment and ecosystems, AI in design could be a useful tool. The problem is that, in the now, these things are not happening. Generative AI is being trained off of stolen work from all over the Web, from music, to text, to art and design, and using up insane amounts of water to do it.

And, yes, it ABSOLUTELY undermines the credibility of the rest of your ("your" general, not any specific person) work, especially when not labelled as AI-generated. On some level, it's a matter of honesty. The way I see it, for example, if you are an artist who AI generates some part of your site – how can I trust that the rest of your work is actually yours? Generative AI can and has stolen work from artists and designers on the web: if you're fine with using that stolen work to generate something for your site, how can I as a user trust that nothing else is stolen?

There's also a level of societal pressure to use AI that I REALLY do not love, as both a designer and an artist. If I had a dollar for the amount of times I've heard that artists/designers were "overly sensitive and need to get over ourselves or get left behind" by other people – other creatives! – using AI, the total cash could buy me a boat. It does not inspire one to stay in their field when a significant number of people would rather turn to gen-AI for an easy, fast design made by a machine that they do not have to treat like a human person and can barrage for any number of rewrites and edits.

There is a discussion to be had here – I disagree with the notion of shutting down on any discussion on AI simply because "it's bad" or "I don't like it", there is nuance in everything, including this conversation. I particularly disagree with "disliking AI because its bad art/soulless" – it was trained off the work of real people, what does that say about my opinion of their designs in turn? Additionally, ensoulment of art/design is not something you can quantifiably measure, which makes it a flimsy argument. My arguments for my dislike of AI fall into the points A, B, and C above: if these issues were resolved somehow, I would probably be more open to using it. However, at the present, I generally will not engage with a business or website if I can see that some part of it is AI-generated.

Again, I apologize if any of this comes off as particularly emotionally charged. I would love to hear others thoughts on the points above, and if there's anything I missed/hadn't considered, I would love to hear it. Dialogue about these topics gets us all closer to understanding one another.