What strikes me most about your comment is that it touches on one of the fundamental challenges of AI, even from a purely technical standpoint: the need to work backward through language.

As humans, we often recognize visual balance, harmony, or beauty instantly, without consciously articulating why. AI, however, requires us to describe what we want in words—even when what we’re reacting to is largely intuitive.

This becomes especially apparent when a result is already 90% right. In creative work, that’s a very common situation. A client might say, “We love it. Could we just make this element feel a little less heavy?” or “Can we soften that detail slightly?” These are subtle adjustments that are easy to perceive but difficult to describe precisely. While AI is becoming increasingly capable of editing existing work, the process still largely depends on translating those intuitions back into language. And the closer you get to the desired result, the more difficult that translation often becomes.

As type designers, we’re especially familiar with this. You can return to a typeface after months and suddenly feel that a single curve needs to move a few units to the left—or perhaps back to the right again. You make the adjustment, step back, review the overall rhythm, and slowly bring the design closer to what your intuition tells you it should be. It’s an incredibly subtle process. Sometimes frustrating, often time-consuming, but usually rewarding.

This also makes me think about the growing focus on technical optimization. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that—most creatives strive for technical excellence in their work. But if technical perfection becomes the primary lens through which we evaluate creative processes, we risk neglecting the intuitive dimension that has always been central to art and design.

In a way, this reminds me of the history of printing and typography. Technical progress continued throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, yet many would argue that typographic quality and readability often declined during that period. It took figures like William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement to look backward—to re-engage with Renaissance principles and values that were centuries old. Their solutions were sometimes romantic and idealized, but they helped restore an appreciation for qualities that technology alone could not provide.

Perhaps that’s how the circle closes. Technological progress is essential, but from time to time we need to revisit the intuitive principles that gave meaning to the craft in the first place.

Danke, Robert!

Wahre Inspiration kommt oft wortlos zu uns. Vielleicht aus unseren Erfahrungen und unserer Intuition – vielleicht aber sogar aus Quellen, die sich unserem logischen Verständnis entziehen.

Very welcome, and thanks for sharing your perspective.
Stefan

Was mich am meisten beschäftigt: KI arbeitet im Grunde rückwärts von der Sprache – man muss beschreiben, was das Auge bereits weiß.

Und genau da liegt die Grenze, denn das Gespür für Balance und Schönheit passiert oft unterhalb der Schwelle des bewussten Denkens.

Thanks for sharing.

Cheers | またね | à bientôt
Rob

Thank you, Mattia—your kind words are much appreciated!

Stefan Seifert

Masterful!

Thank you, Antonella, for these thoughtful words!

And thank you once again for your beautiful work and for your invaluable collaboration on the “10 Years” project. Your visual sensitivity and deep understanding have helped bring our ideas to life across so many projects over the years—from Trifolio to 10 Years.

It’s always a pleasure to create together.

Grazie! E tu sai quanto il tuo sostegno significhi. Apprezzo davvero!

I cannot add anything to such a flattering comment, thank you so much, Benedetta!