Great article. Please forgive the paragraph, I am forming my thoughts as I write. I am struggling with many concepts, emotionally and logically, which this article hilights, mainly, what is the "value" of a person and how do we survive when we have no value? It seems like two of the three value aspects you brought up require permission, the agentic one does not. This is timely, as I have struggled to find purpose/employment (but first, substack!) after my doctorate and keep mining our modern "sages" for advice: Ravikant, who supports Leverage X circle of competence, Newport & Galloway, who support getting really good at something boring but with 90% employment, etc... I like this additional view you present here, but I struggle how one can use this to survive. It seems like there is value independent of reward (satisfying the infinite growth function ex financial growth) and interpersonal value, regardless if it makes the system more efficient (ex. charity). A homeless man is in deep need - we have a conversation and make his week, build a system where they can find some purpose etc. Acting in this way in accordance with the values of "good will toward all mankind" is agentic, valuable to a wider society, but absolutely will not be rewarded by a growth-first system, and will not be automated away bc there is no incentive for this to be so. Is Agency a moat because the system, which optimizes for a growth subroutine, does not need to reinforce this aspect of human interactions? Does this call for a re-assessment of human value altogether, a destruction of the social contract, and a divorce between a human's ability to justify their space and their ability to move matter or information? Or simply do we let those who cannot keep up struggle and not reproduce? Could it even be possible to value the entire cloud of all human abilities, as a package, and not just their vectors which resonate with the growth function?
Great read, Julie. I’d add that one key edge humans have is embodiment.
We don’t just think—we sense, act, and feel through our bodies. Our brain knows something is hot because our skin does. We understand relationships because we’ve lived them, not because we’ve analyzed a dataset of outcomes.
Yes, AI can simulate feedback with sensors, but embodiment isn’t just about inputs—it’s about context, stakes, and lived continuity. When we run real-world experiments, whether in business, love, or art, we’re affected, changed. That feedback loop is visceral and self-reinforcing.
A machine might observe grief or love, but it doesn’t suffer or long. That gap matters.
So maybe our resilience in the age of AI isn’t just intelligence or creativity—but that we bleed, adapt, and grow through a body.
Hi Julie! Thank you for writing this. Every couple of years I find myself having to overcome bigger and bigger challenges. I'm lucky to have been mostly successful thanks to sheer stubbornness and having a great community around me. My questions for you are: how do we develop greater agency over time? how do we keep this moat when AI actually is capable of independent thought?
To be fair, the article is not aimed at the latest emphasis on "excellent taste" or "high craft" that everyone is trying to hire. I happen to be reading this from the frustrated Design candidate perspective. I often see JDs with a call for “taste” just as a guise to say “really flashy visual design.”
Given that lens, what I react to the most here is the section "Taste is a fragile fortress" where I agree in the abstract, but I think in a professional market where Design is a Job, managers seem to forget that most designers work in the context of a company. So when you’re evaluating a portfolio, you should be measuring the output based on those business objectives of course but also the visual in context with the rest of the visual/brand of that product.
As described in the article, it’s all about being a good predictor of what the audience wants.
I personally think I do a great job of designing for my audience (specific product). When I’m applying to another company, I am assuming that will be a new audience for me to learn about and create for, stakeholders and users alike. I wouldn’t assume that my old projects for a different audience need to be an exact match for this new audience. What’s important is the ability to *learn the audience.*
Anyway this is a nice framework to talk about taste. Thank you!
If we were to apply this to an industry like Product Design, you'd probably be really frustrated with an employee who insists on bucking the design system or creating a new feature that looks and moves in a truly unique way. Sure they're a brave and bold trendsetter, but they're probably looking at a generalized audience, and ignoring the audiences of the stakeholders, collaborators, and specific people who actually use the product.
Great article. Please forgive the paragraph, I am forming my thoughts as I write. I am struggling with many concepts, emotionally and logically, which this article hilights, mainly, what is the "value" of a person and how do we survive when we have no value? It seems like two of the three value aspects you brought up require permission, the agentic one does not. This is timely, as I have struggled to find purpose/employment (but first, substack!) after my doctorate and keep mining our modern "sages" for advice: Ravikant, who supports Leverage X circle of competence, Newport & Galloway, who support getting really good at something boring but with 90% employment, etc... I like this additional view you present here, but I struggle how one can use this to survive. It seems like there is value independent of reward (satisfying the infinite growth function ex financial growth) and interpersonal value, regardless if it makes the system more efficient (ex. charity). A homeless man is in deep need - we have a conversation and make his week, build a system where they can find some purpose etc. Acting in this way in accordance with the values of "good will toward all mankind" is agentic, valuable to a wider society, but absolutely will not be rewarded by a growth-first system, and will not be automated away bc there is no incentive for this to be so. Is Agency a moat because the system, which optimizes for a growth subroutine, does not need to reinforce this aspect of human interactions? Does this call for a re-assessment of human value altogether, a destruction of the social contract, and a divorce between a human's ability to justify their space and their ability to move matter or information? Or simply do we let those who cannot keep up struggle and not reproduce? Could it even be possible to value the entire cloud of all human abilities, as a package, and not just their vectors which resonate with the growth function?
Great read, Julie. I’d add that one key edge humans have is embodiment.
We don’t just think—we sense, act, and feel through our bodies. Our brain knows something is hot because our skin does. We understand relationships because we’ve lived them, not because we’ve analyzed a dataset of outcomes.
Yes, AI can simulate feedback with sensors, but embodiment isn’t just about inputs—it’s about context, stakes, and lived continuity. When we run real-world experiments, whether in business, love, or art, we’re affected, changed. That feedback loop is visceral and self-reinforcing.
A machine might observe grief or love, but it doesn’t suffer or long. That gap matters.
So maybe our resilience in the age of AI isn’t just intelligence or creativity—but that we bleed, adapt, and grow through a body.
Hi Julie! Thank you for writing this. Every couple of years I find myself having to overcome bigger and bigger challenges. I'm lucky to have been mostly successful thanks to sheer stubbornness and having a great community around me. My questions for you are: how do we develop greater agency over time? how do we keep this moat when AI actually is capable of independent thought?
To be fair, the article is not aimed at the latest emphasis on "excellent taste" or "high craft" that everyone is trying to hire. I happen to be reading this from the frustrated Design candidate perspective. I often see JDs with a call for “taste” just as a guise to say “really flashy visual design.”
Given that lens, what I react to the most here is the section "Taste is a fragile fortress" where I agree in the abstract, but I think in a professional market where Design is a Job, managers seem to forget that most designers work in the context of a company. So when you’re evaluating a portfolio, you should be measuring the output based on those business objectives of course but also the visual in context with the rest of the visual/brand of that product.
As described in the article, it’s all about being a good predictor of what the audience wants.
I personally think I do a great job of designing for my audience (specific product). When I’m applying to another company, I am assuming that will be a new audience for me to learn about and create for, stakeholders and users alike. I wouldn’t assume that my old projects for a different audience need to be an exact match for this new audience. What’s important is the ability to *learn the audience.*
Anyway this is a nice framework to talk about taste. Thank you!
If we were to apply this to an industry like Product Design, you'd probably be really frustrated with an employee who insists on bucking the design system or creating a new feature that looks and moves in a truly unique way. Sure they're a brave and bold trendsetter, but they're probably looking at a generalized audience, and ignoring the audiences of the stakeholders, collaborators, and specific people who actually use the product.