Jakob Nielsen, a usability researcher, writes about UX and how AI changes interface design, including prompt-driven interaction.
HN commenters question his claim that half of people are not articulate and find the AI-generated images on the blog distracting.
> Roughly half of people in most developed countries are not functionally articulate
Where did you get this idea? I found this article (https://www.uxtigers.com/post/ai-articulation-barrier, is this you?), but it makes a leap from literacy to articulacy that I don't understand. It's not obvious to me why an illiterate person would be "functionally inarticulate" assuming they can speak instead of write.
Also, I'm not certain but I think the author is underestimating the abilities of a person with Level 2 literacy. It doesn't seem correct to say that "level 3 is the first level to represent the ability to truly read and work with text", especially when the whole point of LLMs is that you don't have to read a long static document and understand it, you can have a conversation and ask for something to be rephrased or ask followup questions.
There was a study that found that, in radiology, human-first assessment resulted in worse outcomes that human-alone. Possibly the human's letting borderline cases through, on the assumption that the machine will catch them.
There's a roundup of such findings here, but they're a mixed bag: https://www.uxtigers.com/post/humans-negative-value I suspect you need careful process design to get better outcomes, and it's not one-size-fits-all.
As an example, I find the AI-generated "slop images in Jakob Nielsen's UX blog quite annoying and distractng.
https://www.uxtigers.com/post/ux-roundup-20260504
https://www.uxtigers.com/post/ux-roundup-20260504