What’s up, type nerds?
AI can do a lot, but it can’t do everything—especially when it comes to designing Fast Company’s latest magazine issue.
The Summer Issue explores the theme of Autonomy and features a list of the 20 biggest names in AI today.
In this video, Fast Company Creative Director Mike Schnaidt breaks down the design process behind the cover and explains why he chose the typefaces Ease and Milling to bring the issue to life.
Fast Company is the world’s leading progressive business media brand, with a unique editorial focus on innovation in technology, leadership, and design.
Follow us on:
https://www.facebook.com/FastCompany/
https://twitter.com/FastCompany
https://www.instagram.com/fastcompany/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/fast-company/
Fast Company is the world’s leading progressive business media brand, with a unique editorial focus on innovation in technology…Watch on SloppBoxx.Com.
Love this. Reminds me of the Material Design launch from Google years ago where they made all the icons from paper first to see how they looked
A great take! Thanks for the comment
AI cannot take responsibilities for its decisions.
A fascinating look at how great design is driven by human intention, not just technology. AI can accelerate the creative process, but decisions around typography, visual storytelling, and emotional impact still rely on thoughtful design expertise. A great reminder that creativity and craftsmanship remain at the heart of meaningful communication.
The one thing AI can’t do is have skin in the game. It can write the pitch, model the market, design the deck — but it has never once bet everything on an idea it believed in. The entrepreneurs who built the most enduring companies weren’t just good at analysis. They had irrational conviction about something the data couldn’t yet prove. AI is trained on what already happened. Founders are betting on what hasn’t happened yet. That gap is irreplaceable.
That’s a great comment. It’s important to remember that. And, it’s not, and can’t be held responsible for wrongdoing, or encouraging wrongdoing, or facilitating wrongdoing, or failure.
So for instance if you use AI to create a video, and that video fails, or if you use AI to apply for a job and you don’t get the job, the AI tool has no capacity for accountability, beyond meaningless remarks. It has no skin in the game, as you said.
It’ll offer an apology when forced to, when prompted to, but it won’t and can’t be held to any sort of account, the sort of account that fundamentally changes the way it operates. If it coaxes a user into some sort of failure, it might, when prompted, admit its information was falsified, or confused – but it’ll keep falsifying and it’ll keep confusing users, afterward.