Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy - Dylan Field - Designing The Future - [Invest Like the Best, EP.407]

Starting point is 00:00:00 Most software companies try to maximize your time on their app to juice engagement. Ramp does the exact opposite. Ramp understands that no one wants to spend hours chasing receipts, reviewing expense reports, and checking for policy violations. So they built their tools to give that time back, using AI to automate 85% of expense reviews with 99% accuracy. And since Ramp saves companies 5%, it's no wonder that Shopify runs on Ramp, Stripe runs on Ramp, and my business does too.

Starting point is 00:00:26 To see what happens when you eliminate the busy work, check out ramp.com slash invest. Hello and welcome, everyone. I'm Patrick O'Shaughnessy, and this is Invest Like the Best. This show is an open-ended exploration of markets, ideas, stories, and strategies that will help you better invest both your time and your money. Invest Like the Best is part of the Colossus family of podcasts, and you can access all our podcasts, including edited transcripts, show notes, and other resources to keep learning

Starting point is 00:00:54 at join colossus.com. Patrick O'Shaughnessy is the CEO of positive sum. All opinions expressed by Patrick and podcast guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of positive sum. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a basis for investment decisions. Clients of positive sum may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this podcast. To learn more, visit psum.vc. My guest today is Dylan Field. Dylan is the co-founder and CEO of Figma and last join me on a Best like the Best in 2020. A lot has changed since then and we explore the evolving landscape of design and how Figma has

Starting point is 00:01:39 been navigating AI while staying true to its founding vision of eliminating the gap between imagination and reality. Despite Figma's incredible success and becoming the default design platform, Dylan remains deeply motivated by helping users achieve their goals. He shares fascinating insights about the underhyped aspects of AI reasoning capabilities, the future of design literacy, and why he believes truly great design will always require human craft and creativity. Please enjoy my discussion with Dylan Field. Four years since we did this last, which is completely nuts, terrifies me. I'd love to just get your state of the union on the world of technology today.

Starting point is 00:02:15 What are you thinking? What are you paying attention to? What do you think is going on? It's funny. I can remember where we were the last time we had a conversation for just the podcast versus the last time we had a conversation. And I remember being this like rental house. with my wife and some of our friends, and it was like total lockdown.

Starting point is 00:02:36 I remember around the same time, NFTs were just starting to take off if you were paying attention to them. I think we're pretty excited by the Metaverse. Crypto Bull cycle is just starting again, and we're all trying to figure out what COVID would do to the world and how that would change things and what the decade of the 20s would be like. And I feel like now we're like midway through that decade. There was some tweet, I think Scott Belsky wrote it. And he was saying, I think that the 2020s will be like the roaring 20s. There was this period with COVID bubble in the public markets that everyone thought that might be the case.

Starting point is 00:03:16 And then I feel like maybe we didn't think it was the case. And certainly it feels like we're back in some strange, bullish cycle right now, both with regards to public equities and tech in general and what people are willing to support and bet on. If you look at technology broadly, it feels like there's a lot of optimism about doing hard things right now. And perhaps that's sort of on the back of all this progress with AI

Starting point is 00:03:43 and folks knowing now that the predictions from, not just 10 years ago, but like 30 years ago, are pretty correct down to a T. Kurtzvile was right. It's wild how some of these essays from like early 90s got it right on the money. And I think that opens up the possibility for people to think a bit more long term and be more bold maybe.

Starting point is 00:04:07 And with that, it feels like people are willing to do stuff that is a bit less traditional as well. So I feel like we broke out the Overton windows across the board in social discourse but also technology. And yeah, let's see where it goes. The waters that you swim in include lots of these most ambitious people pushing those frontiers and windows. Can you say like a click more detail about what it feels like to engage with those people

Starting point is 00:04:33 relative to like the marginal entrepreneur that was talented that you met in 2019 or something like that? How do they feel different? I think that the best entrepreneurs have like a level of certainty about them. And I think that same certainty exists in folks that I was spending time with in 2020, 2021 versus 2024, 2025, most of which I'm still in touch with, we're still training emails. So it's not like these relationships fade. But I think that people starting things today, on average, are thinking a bit more long term. It's less about what happens over the next six

Starting point is 00:05:07 months and more about what happens over the next six years. That'd be my macro observation. Do you feel like that was something that you had really harnessed in the early days? because I know it was like three or four years that you were building before you launched. Maybe take us back to then. That's a decade ago, ish. Perhaps it's some selection bias with the story of Figma. Yeah. Folks are going, oh, man, I got to hunker down for a few years.

Starting point is 00:05:30 I should talk to Dylan. I'm super curious about the hardest parts of building something in private for so long without tons of open market feedback on the product or pricing feedback or whatever. How you keep a team motivated when you have a strong vision for what's something? should look like, but you have to build for a long time before anyone can see it. That seems like a lot, there's a lot of those projects going on right now. When I look back, I go, man, I wish that we had gotten out earlier, first of all. I tell everyone that it's like, what's the smallest increment of the idea that you could get out in an inspiring form? I definitely look back and wish that we had found

Starting point is 00:06:08 that smaller bit sooner. It would have made everything a bit easier. It's also way easier to say that now. We don't have the split test of what happens if we were to have launched with something very basic or incremental. Would it still have led to the figma of today? We just don't know. But the hard parts were obviously just motivating the team, saying milestones, conveying product feedback. When I would give feedback to the team, it was often writing. I'd write up notes from talking to customers I'd visit and put the product in front of. until I got to the point where I started just literally recording user research sessions with people's consent, of course,

Starting point is 00:06:47 and then playing those back to the team and group settings, and we just sit there and awkwardly watch people struggle with the product for five minutes. That was the way to get people motivated about, like, oh, we got to solve these problems. But there's still a disbelief of, okay, if we actually solve them, well, people care. And I think you don't know that viscerally until you get something out into the market, or at least announce. if you make an announcement and it's big enough, then people will react to it and that can motivate an internal effort.

Starting point is 00:07:16 But even that is hard. A lot of people without traction struggle to launch things in a way that's scaled. Gaining that reach and that scale, if you're doing something that's truly unique, that's tough. So even that, gain the right action.

Starting point is 00:07:28 You have to be pretty clear about what you're building and why to the team and people would be really fired up out with mission. One of the things that obviously distinguish Figma early days was this leap inability to create things, like the gap between one's imagination and a realized output was collapsed by Figma. And the way that even the friction for how they used that tool in the browser was collapsed. Again, it feels like you're in a very interesting position in that

Starting point is 00:07:54 the enabling technologies that are coming out right now in and around AI, most specifically, are like this on steroids. They are further collapsing the potential gap between one's imagination and a realized output. How do you think, about navigating that as one of the people running one of the big companies that does this as a service. Both the opportunities and the risks, it must be such an interesting time for you to think about both sides of the equation. And I would love to hear about both of them in whatever order you want. This was the founding vision, was the limited the gap to imagination reality. Was that literally the founding? That was the vision statement at the start. At some point, we made it

Starting point is 00:08:32 more concrete about make design accessible to all because people are getting confused about the limited a gap to imagination reality. I'm looking at the time, comp photo papers with my co-founder Evan, and we're seeing on many you can use internet scale data to fill in regions of a photograph to basically do content fill, but do a way that is sourced from the internet rather than something clever. So we're looking at like early machine learning approaches as applied to creative tools and we were getting excited. But also starting to think about what's potential for something like a BCI in terms of human computer interaction. And it felt like that was a vision statement that could last us a long time. And the feedback we got was, this is so abstract. What

Starting point is 00:09:09 what are you guys talking about? In some point, we made it more concrete. And now it feels like it's time to make it a bit more abstract again. But yeah, I think that in terms of how I think about what AI can do in the applications, I think that it's both like underhyped and overhyped the same time somehow. I feel like the reasoning capabilities I'm like, oh in pro mode right now. We're recording this on January 10th. Got a time. It's still under hype. Yeah. In a week, everything can be different and say AI timelines, that still seems underhyped as of right now. I've followed that way for the past month. I'm curious what you've experienced that makes you feel that way. Well, there's a leap from 01 preview to O1 Pro mode in terms of just how much compute is used, I think,

Starting point is 00:09:50 or perhaps it's something about the way they've trained it. But the level of analysis and thoughtfulness that is now included in answers, the level of intent that can be detected from your prompt, You don't have to be as mechanical about prompting things, actually, and the outcomes are just quite good. I mean, I use it for so many things now. It's the first time I felt like there's something that resembles intelligence on the other end. I get to work a lot with lawyers. And with O1 Pro Mode, I can often get a sense of what are the important things to cover in a legal call before I have the call? So I can have like a shorter billable hour. How do you prompt it? If you can actually get a legal call, I mean, you can actually get a legal call, before I have the call. I can have, you can have a short or billable hour. I can't, you can't conceptual material out in preparation for a conversation with somebody generates a lot of efficiency and lets you short-circuit to the things that matter. It's been excellent as a learning tool.

Starting point is 00:10:45 I can deep dive on concepts that are not ones I've encountered, and it has very good knowledge broadly and is much more accurate. At the same time, I feel like it's overhyped to AI in general. It feels like there's still very much this outer loop that exists around AI. It's like it can do things for us much faster, and yet we have to help it maneuver. We have to give it guidance. Yes, it's getting better at predicting intent, but it's not all the way there at all. And so, yeah, it's this interesting period where I think people see where things could go if everything is perfect, but it's just not perfect. I don't expect it to be for a very long time. I think in the context of Figma, we really thought about RAI efforts as lowering the floor but raising the ceiling. One example of that is,

Starting point is 00:11:29 how do we generate a first draft for you? This isn't going to be a system that's going to generate the final output. But if we can make a first draft that then you can go off of, build off of, iterate on, explore the tree of possibilities with, then hopefully you can get to the point where you're able to deep dive on one of those possibilities, understand the tradeoffs, and bring even more craft to your design. My sense is that the amount of software that will be created, we'll continue to go up exponentially. We've been on exponential curve, but it's going to go more vertical. And so then what's the differentiator is design, it's craft. And it's really important to make sure that you bring that if you want to stand out in the market. How do you think about the

Starting point is 00:12:13 ability to continue to bet on things which won't change in an era of hyperchange? What can you hang your hat on that will still be true five or ten years from now and build around reliably versus worrying that two iterations of the model forward. Everything that Figma does becomes like a prompt and I can just like talk to 05 and there's a little screen and it just gets built, not just the design, but like the whole application. He starts thinking about this crazy stuff. How do you navigate that strategically? I saw a tweet recently and I wish I remember who posted it. I can't find it for the life of me, but sorry, whoever it was, I'm not attributing you. But it was something like, as a designer, I'm not worried about AI replacing my job because a product manager can't even

Starting point is 00:12:56 prompt me the right way. And I feel like that's super true. Design is incorporating so many different aspects of culture, of user behavior, of alignment, of craft, of just knowledge about where people are in different flows and more. It's so much about like the almost debate of how it should work as well as the pixel perfection of what it looks like. It's something about creativity, meeting, problem solving in an interesting way. I feel like maybe just a design becomes much more accessible to people, which I think is a good thing. But, I mean, if you work with a designer who is very new to the world design versus somebody who is just incredibly experienced, knows deeply how every system works, is able to keep incredible state in their head around a complex systems problem, I mean, the latter is rare. You will see the difference. And I just feel like even as design is made more accessible, it doesn't mean that craft is made more ubiquitous. I suspect that there will be higher levels of craft that tools like Figma can help people reach.

Starting point is 00:14:01 But the thinking around what to bring to market when, how, and how exactly it should work in navigating these really complex systems tradeoffs that could unfold over years is just non-trivial. I think those all remain constants. Everyone is very focused on LLMs and their derivatives and things built upon them. Are there any other new technologies that you are? are watching like you're watching those core models as they roll out that you feel like are enabling of what you do or what you hope to see others do? Reasoning is a little bit different than LMs.

Starting point is 00:14:39 We're conflating them right now, but there seem to be two different things. And I think it's pretty exciting to imagine what progress and math and science can be like with the help of reasoning models that are able to think for extended periods of time on a task. And very exciting to think about how that could. could create new technologies for everyone. In the Figma context, I wouldn't say that there's necessarily new technical breakthroughs outside of the world of AI that I think are really changing a lot for us right now. That said, I think that markets and preferences are ever shifting.

Starting point is 00:15:14 And I think people are getting a lot more sophisticated about the way that they build applications, the way that they think about their internal systems. And that's exciting and stuff that we can think about as we work through our strategy. What about like technology advancements and tech trees is the term we were talking about before a hit record, what WebGL represented and why it was such a big deal and the nature of the incrementality of this one? With WebGL, something like Figma became possible for the first time. In the past, you had to be desktop in order to do complex graphics in application. And we were not sure where the limits of WebGL would be. Originally, Evan spent a lot of time building something

Starting point is 00:15:53 that was more cross-platform, honestly, and could target desktop as well as web. We had to rip it all out later because WebGL worked out. But we even hedged our bets initially because we were believers, but it was like, oh, man, there's some part of this that's not going to work out. And it turned out that you could do everything we dreamed of on the web and do it in a really production-ready way.

Starting point is 00:16:14 Whereas WebDivu's awesome will create all sorts of benefits, but I'd say it's more of an extension of what you can do with a GPU then going from not being able to use the GPU to using the GPU. What do you think about the role of these fancy reasoning engines being plugged in to make your product better? There's this abstract idea like, okay, now we have a reasoning engine. It can do whatever. We can use it to do some stuff. How do you decide what stuff to try to have it do to make the product better?

Starting point is 00:16:44 What's the framework for which you attack that opportunity? It's maybe counterintuitive at this point, but despite my excitement about reasoning engines, I think there's so much well-hanging fruit to dive into reasoning to make our product better with AI. And so we started off with the most basic of things like, let's go make diagrams better in Fig Jam. And we went into, okay, how do we get it so that you can do stuff like name your layers automatically or create a first draft of a design? Or can we help you rewrite text and Figma slides to match tone better and create a interface to explore that? Without talking more about, where we're going next to our red map, I still think that there's so much low-hanging fruit that we can

Starting point is 00:17:26 explore, and that's super obvious before we get to fancy stuff like reasoning engines. And I think that there's not many examples in the market as of today that are using reasoning at the product level yet. And I think the few that are trying are still struggling to productize it. This means it's not coming. I think it's harder to probably create a great experience around given just the nature of where that tree can branch out into versus it's even less deterministic than an LLM, if you conceptualize it's like an LM thinking and talking to itself for a long time and ending up in interesting spots down the logic tree. I actually think it could be even more interesting, honestly, to expose the tree of possibilities rather than try to hide it away from somebody. I think a lot of reasoning is an LM basically

Starting point is 00:18:13 traversing that tree itself and then figuring out what do I tell to the user. Personally, I think that a lot of the value in design is actually seeing the tree. I think that's probably true elsewhere, exposing the tree as a general idea. Maybe. Yeah. It depends on the domain probably and also a use case. Does it worry you the notion that these things could get so good that you already mentioned the thing about the designer and the product manager? But if I imagine a perfectly designed, funded competitor whose only mission in life was Kill Figma, that they would approach this as it's going to be the same thing, but the thing you design in Gigma works. It's a fully functional app at the end. All the underlying code is written. It's not just a prototype. It's a live production

Starting point is 00:18:55 app. Is that a ridiculous notion? Do you think that will happen? Could Figma just be the one that does that? How do you think about that brain-stretching possibility where everyone's a software developer now? I may have a few reactions. I think that the amount of software created will go vertical. I think that a lot of people make a lot more software. It doesn't mean it's good software. And I think that designers and people that are able to bring more craft the equation, yeah, they bring that temporal, emotional, cultural context that can really differentiate something. And yes, I also believe that there's more we can do to improve software development in general. That's why we, with Figma, have really tried to map out the process of software development.

Starting point is 00:19:36 So we start with FIGM, brainstorming ideation, then we go to Figma slides like alignment. We have Figma Design for design, and then dev mode for design. went to development and how to translate to developers. Yeah, I definitely think that there's way more we can do to make it so that people are able to achieve even more and go through that loop of software development even faster. So that excites me a lot. Are the things that you're counting on happening that you expect to happen that you think to the average person would seem outlandish? Dyson's Fear by 2100. Say more. The transition to the next type of of civilization that we might encounter, probably we like harness the energy of the sun by 2100.

Starting point is 00:20:21 Or maybe it's not our sun. Maybe we harness the energy of a neighboring sun. No need to mess with ours. But yeah, and you can do all sorts of interesting things. I think that as the goal, maybe it becomes a lot sooner, but I think certainly by 2100, we should be able to get there. What about in the next 10 years? Is there anything that you expect to happen in the next 10 years that you think other people might think is like outlandishly bullish or something? The beauty of digital right now is that it feels like anything is possible. And I mean, that's the outlandish thing, period, is that we're getting to a place where I've kind of always felt like the approach should be you can build anything that's not violating the laws of physics given enough time.

Starting point is 00:21:01 And now, like, the time portion of that even is decreasing on the digital side. And certainly digital is not usually violating the laws of physics. So that's pretty exciting. If you were giving like a graduate level seminar presentation or something on the future of design, how would you think about structuring your slides, built in Figma, of course. Whatever you're speaking to folks, I think you have to think about the audience. I would probably try to make this presentation for general of an audience as possible. By definition, it wouldn't necessarily be graduate level in the first place, pushing us back into the premise. Sorry, I'm not your LM to prompt.

Starting point is 00:21:39 I'll keep trying. Yeah, I mean, I would try to basically encourage everyone to try to build design literacy and figure out how do you get better and increase your abilities in the field of design. And I think that if you look at the next generation of entrepreneurs and founders and certainly software, but also in hardware, they are becoming so much more design literate. And again, maybe it's selection bias. I hear so many founders that tell me they start in Figma. and they're like in Figma design a lot of the time,

Starting point is 00:22:11 they might not even have a designer in the team they aspire to, but they don't yet because they're just starting off. That's where a lot of folks live now is on this digital canvas trying to figure out how should something work. And when I look at the future of people that'll work in technology or folks that are going to be founders, when we look at the students that we reach with Figma through our EDU efforts, it's just incredible to see how advanced they are.

Starting point is 00:22:36 and how much they are deep diving on design as a discipline. And I think that more than we ever could have imagined, it's becoming a skill that I hope one day it'll be more like listing Microsoft Word in your resume. Right now, people put Figma on the resumes. If you put Microsoft in your Word and resume, it's kind of like a red flag. And I hope we get to that status

Starting point is 00:22:59 because it's so obvious that you should know how to design things. That doesn't mean you're going to be a writer, but everyone should be able to engage the discipline of design. If I did like an 80-20 analysis of design principles in the 80, what are the most important things to really grok and understand for someone new to the discipline? Design principles span U.S. but also visuals. They're very different when you're thinking about product versus branding.

Starting point is 00:23:28 And so it depends a lot on what context we're talking about right now. I think if you're talking more on the software UX side, I would say the first things I see people mess up are when to reuse versus when to be inventive. There are plenty of patterns that users already know. And sometimes it's very useful to be inventive and create new patterns. And that's why something can catch on and sometimes it's not. I would say that people fail to consider flows. So a lot of times they don't think about where users coming from. They think only about a certain state that someone's in right now.

Starting point is 00:23:59 and that context, if they lack it, can hurt them and hurt their experience. I think that they often are too indirect. So they have complex ways of manipulating data where you have to manipulate it on maybe it's one screen over here and you have to go to different screen to be able to see the effect or it's not all in one place. You can't get that call and response to that immediate feedback loop. That doesn't mean that you have to be direct manipulation like a tool like Figma, but the closer you can get the manipulation to the effect, I think, is better.

Starting point is 00:24:27 And then I think more than the 20 is the stuff that we try to memeify inside of Figma, make the simple thing simple, the complex things possible. And that's not an original Figmaism that goes back a long ways, famous design quote. But I would say that it's easy to just endlessly do what users want, add more power to applications, and then end up with something super complex. That's not useful or not approachable. It's one of the biggest risk for Figma that we're always trying to counterbalance is how to make sure that we're not too power user, despite people using us for powerful things. That's something

Starting point is 00:24:59 that we work on a lot as an organization. Do you find yourself curious about the next layer of non-flat digital screen design interfaces? How do you think about the other potential spaces in which we might interact with systems? And I guess that would be radically different design environments. New patterns, like now I'm annoyed if something on my phone doesn't work the way that I'm used to 100 other things using it or something in the similar design. pattern. What do you think about new interfaces? Are there any that are interesting enough to you to spend some real time thinking about? I love new interfaces. So yeah, like all of them, VR for me is something that I've deeply enjoyed exploring because I think that it's an example of so many new patterns being created and tried. I still think that mobile, whether it's iPhone size screen or a iPad size screen, there's so many more patterns and interactions that.

Starting point is 00:25:55 that could be explored than are being explored, is really limited by how much people can learn. Just think about how hard it was for Apple to teach people how to long press on an iPhone in order to select text. There's an unlimited potential for how many of those interactions exist, but there's only a limited attention span to teach the consumer. But when you have something like VR,

Starting point is 00:26:14 where you have a bunch of early adopters, and you can teach them through game mechanics because it's mostly a gaming platform at this point, then you have this awesome ability to go and experiment. experiment. And yeah, a lot of the experiments won't work, but just early computing interfaces, some of them will, and some of them will be like really fascinating. And maybe we'll see with other platforms like more augmented reality type glasses or eventually BCIs. VCIs are kind of like the ultimate interface. And if you can get to the point where your intent is an input and then

Starting point is 00:26:44 you're creating something, it's kind of the grail. And so it's very excited. You strike me as open-minded and optimistic about all these things and curious about them all. Are there any like dark patterns in all this that have you concerned or parts of this proliferation that you're worried about? I mean, the obvious dark pattern for BCI is if you are like a true believer is wireheading where you basically have the fetidinal button, you just keep pressing it in a dark room in the corner. That's a bad one. Yeah. I mean, it's like as dark as you can go.

Starting point is 00:27:15 I've never heard that term before. So maybe I'll be like the late majority on the BCI or something. It's not an original idea. I mean, this isn't many people will talk about for a long time. What about in the traditional current AI world? Is there any part of that proliferation that you think is really important for us to watch carefully? Yeah, I do. I think that there's a bunch of ways you can break down the safety argument.

Starting point is 00:27:40 And the one that I think is the highest risk in terms of lack of visibility and transparency and also the potential for it to escalate quickly is if you remove a human in the loop in the military context. I think there'll be great temptation to do that, and I think it can be very dangerous. How would we deal with these problems? I don't know, but I hope smarter people that we can figure them out. It seems like the historical lesson is really bad things will happen, and then we'll backfill protective mechanisms. The protective mechanisms will come from a response to bad things happening, and public

Starting point is 00:28:15 outcry or just some version of that. I don't know, that seems to be the pattern of history. Very rarely do we thoughtfully design it ahead of time? Yeah, I think there's also a pattern, though, of people becoming immune to things over time. If you look at the history of humanity, yeah, there have been times that broad swaths of the population have become addicted to things, and yet we've gotten through them, the wireheaded in case I would not be as fearful of. And I think for the military side, like, I think there's very thoughtful people there, too. So I'm actually very optimistic. But you asked me to go into the dark spot.

Starting point is 00:28:49 I'm shane's the light on them. Do you feel your competitive juices flowing in any different way in the last year plus of these amazing new technologies relative to times prior? Does it kick off anything new in you? Like the role of competition in your motivation and life? I think it's important to do things from a perspective of you want them to exist. But yeah, like in any situation, if it's a game, then it's a game I want to win. It doesn't have to be business. It could be a board game.

Starting point is 00:29:19 I like to win those too. I think it's fun to have that gamer mentality, especially when you're on a team. I was never a team sports guy because I'm not very good at sports, but I really like robotics club. We're all together and trying to figure out in this sort of more intellectual activity, how do we win? My team didn't always win, but it was a lot of fun.

Starting point is 00:29:38 And coming into Figma, I feel like we have the best team. So I feel very blessed. You mentioned at the beginning that you've been using the 01 pro a lot more personally. Is there anything that you've used it for, that you think is most novel to you or where the output or interaction has most surprised you so far?

Starting point is 00:29:54 I'm trying to collect these things and then share them with people to just get them trying this stuff. Anything in that category come to mind? Well, actually, my favorite prompt was not my own, unfortunately, but it was my friend who's an elementary school teacher and her prompt was,

Starting point is 00:30:10 write a story about a dinosaur for a six-year-old using only the first 10 letters of the alphabet. That was a really wild problem. It thought for a long time of that one. But it actually did get a result in the end. If I told you to do that right now, it's hard. I'm really interested by your point about our standards for these things already being

Starting point is 00:30:29 much higher than any reasonable human, except maybe like the number one person in the world in the field that you're querying about or something like that. Does that mean to you that we're already past all these benchmarks of intelligence, general intelligence, maybe even super intelligence? Do you care about these things at all? Are they just stupid? I think it's kind of funny how everyone's like, oh, Is it AGI? Is it not AGI? No one seems to have a shared definition of what AGI is. I feel like

Starting point is 00:30:54 being able to talk to someone at the level of depth that O and Pro can answer, that feels pretty general and pretty intelligent to me. Is it doing work yet? Not just yet, but it feels like, to me, it's functionally AGI. And plenty of people would debate me on that one. But when I said on line, I said everyone's time to put your down your definitions of AGI. Some people feel like it's already here, some people, we can keep putting the definitions out there. We skated right past the turning test. And I feel like the default is just to keep pushing on what that definition could be. When it comes to superintelligence, I actually get pretty excited because I think we'll see a lot of superintelligence first is actually in research domains. I think math in particular,

Starting point is 00:31:38 we're going to see novel theorems proven, maybe not the most elegant of ways, but they will be proven and then maybe it's like from there, then people find the elegant proof because they know it's possible. Just like someone runs a fast mile and then everyone else tries to one up them because they know it's possible. And I think it's going to be really interesting to see the ways that humans and AI work together in these research domains. It seems to me that there's always been an incredibly high return on vision, drive, and motivation for people. Inertial rains, unless those three things come together and someone pushes something new into existence, these things aren't, at least to my understand, not driven or motivated. Does that mean that the returns to those things go up in this world and that people should

Starting point is 00:32:23 just focus on the areas where they're the most energized, motivated, and driven? How do you think about that part of this equation that progress happens through those things and these machines don't have those things? I would argue that regardless of AGI or AI progress, that's already where you should be. If you're so lucky to get to choose what you do, then yeah, you should already be focused on the areas where you're driven and motivated and have vision and how time up to your three.

Starting point is 00:32:50 But I already argue that. I mean, it's so easy to find something that's novel. Doesn't mean it's something that you're going to be driven and motivated by over time. Sadly, a lot of entrepreneurs fall into the strap, they find something. And they go and they go build that thing and they're making some money from it

Starting point is 00:33:04 and they just keep going, but it almost always leads to burnout because it's not what they are truly motivated by. And I think long term, probably the highest agency people will deliver the best results in the age of AI. Yes, currently, agents don't have agency despite the words being very similar. What this far into Figma still is the most motivating to you? I think everyone sets out to build the default platform and you did that. It's now the thing that people put on their resumes.

Starting point is 00:33:34 Hopefully your post-resumé soon. Maybe that's motivating. but what are like the really hot burning core fuel sources for you still, despite having built the platform of record for your world? It's super simple. And by the way, I think that we're far away from what you're saying, although it's very generous.

Starting point is 00:33:49 But I would say it's just any time that we can help the user achieve their goals. Anytime I get user feedback, whether it's constructive, it's like, I didn't like this thing. I'm like, oh, man, we've got to improve the thing.

Starting point is 00:34:00 Or it's, man, I was able to do X because of Figma, any part of the product. That is the eternal. fuel for me. And I just love interacting with customers. What was that rooted in your life? Were you wired this way? Did it kick into gear when you were young? I think it's probably hardwired. I have notebooks from when I was a little kid about how would you go make the best bathroom? Because that was something I was really interested in as like a six, five year old or six year old or whatever. By the way, there's still a lot of improvements we can make to bathrooms. Lay it on me. What would you do? I'm less demophobic now than I used to be. But it's a lot of, but it's a lot of people. It's a lot of

Starting point is 00:34:36 As a kid who was a little bit of a germaphobe, I remember going to SFO for the first time and it could just be this magical experience that you could put your hands in the faucet and it would automatically the water would come out. Big moment for you. Five-year-old Dylan was automatic sinks everywhere. It was a big deal. One clever importance is the ability to open a door with your foot. I mean, everyone's coming into the bathroom, going out of the bathroom.

Starting point is 00:35:01 Their hands may not be dirty coming in or coming out and opening it with your foot is like a really good move. That should probably exist everywhere. Toto's are great. I'll stop there. When you think about your role now at the business, you're a CEO, a traditional CEO. There's lots of stuff you have to worry about. How much do you force yourself to just do the stuff where you have special energy and farm out other things versus it's my responsibility to own like the different stack, different parts of the business because I'm the leader of the business? Yeah, it's my responsibility to make sure that everything's going well over Figma. there are some areas I'm going to bring zero level of expertise to.

Starting point is 00:35:39 Our compliance functioned, do I have any unique insight on compliance? No. Just that it should be done and done well. When it comes to design or the way that our products are built, my level of insight might go up a bit. I try to be self-aware of what I'm bringing to a conversation, but ultimately, yeah, I have to have ownership of everything. and some things you know you've got the right leaders and you check on them very infrequently.

Starting point is 00:36:06 In other areas, whether you have very high confidence in your leaders or not, the stakes are so high that you have to be always involved. And my point of view is design is like that for everyone across the board of your building software. You need to be deeply, intimately working with your design team or anyone doing design on your product because otherwise you might lose the business. This is the way you'll win or lose.

Starting point is 00:36:31 and certainly I'd treat it that way for Figma. If you think back on the business's history now, it's been around for a decade plus. What has gone the most wrong in the business's history? I mean, look, it all comes back to people when you're talking about that. And I think when you maybe don't hire correctly or don't set the standard the right way and you have to reset a bit, that's always tough. But something you can work through. And I feel like as long as you hire people who have that self-awareness, they'll help you work through it. That's a positive part.

Starting point is 00:37:02 If you think about the next chapter of Figma, however defined, I'm curious what chapter title you would put on it and a little bit of a description of the chapter. It gives me like make design bigger than design. How do you take it so that design is not thought of just as fixable pushing, but also is something that people are really considering and doing at all parts of the process of building a company. And how do you make it said they have the tools to that and they're able to be intentional about that? The thing I'm inspired by your make design bigger than design is, do you use a personal example with the AI tools or whatever? I've never made a recipe in my life.

Starting point is 00:37:42 I'm not a cook. I suck. But with these tools, I'm able to say, here's kind of stuff that I like, here's ingredients I like, here's what I have available, here's how much time I have, make me a recipe. I can express a lot of intent and context. And then I have a recipe that I need. make that I really like that no one's ever made before. Like, I didn't think of the recipe, the thing did. But it seems like maybe there's an analog in design that in design, I have never designed software applications, but I have lots of intent and context and desire and constraints. Is that the right way to think about it, that like maybe Figma might make someone like me expand the market by making me a designer? I mean, I think that if you've got a point of view

Starting point is 00:38:23 in the world and you're able to articulate it, how can we empower you with the tools so that you can create something and then also how do we empower you with the tools for you to make it great. That to me is super exciting. And if you look at the number of people that use Figma and they're labeling themselves to designers today, I mean, it's like one third of the people that come into Figma label themselves as a designer. The other two thirds do not. But my belief is that those two thirds will get into the design process in various ways.

Starting point is 00:38:53 Are there any other trends around design that matter directly or indirectly to your business that you're most on top of and curious about in the world right now? I think that we're always curious by design systems. And the more that you've got people in the organization who are deeply thinking about user problems through the lens of design, you also have problem of consistency at scale. That's where design systems come in. How do you make sure that your product is speaking in the same language

Starting point is 00:39:23 as multiple people with multiple perspectives are working on it? And I think that the interplay between design systems and creativity is something that we're always fascinated by at Figma. And how do you both help people standardize while also giving them the room to innovate and be creative? And those two things are somewhat intention sometimes, but are both objectives that Figma should hold. I'm so curious to think about the whatever, one, three, five, 10-year hence versions of what you might make possible for people. I'm asking you like speculate here, just for fun. How long do you think it is until someone like me can effectively work with Figma to create the thing in my head with more or less complete fidelity? Like I don't have to compromise on what I'm imagining to get it prototyped on the screen or something like that with basically no design training or talent.

Starting point is 00:40:19 I would hope within three years and if we can do it within one year, then we should do another podcast on that. What's it like building with these things with AI tooling? What we're seeing right now is the earliest tools, and it will evolve a lot the way that you build with them. And I also think that as you build with them in the context of design, people realize that it's not enough just to get out what's in your head at full fidelity, but you'll want to improve what's in your head too. And you'll start to appreciate the work of professional designers as well.

Starting point is 00:40:55 even more. And you'll be on your own journey to becoming one. How much of good design do you think comes after the initial draft? All of it? Like all of it. That's the beauty of software products versus physical products. A physical product, it's so hard to be in an iterative loop for. Industrial design, it's all about, okay, you do all the iteration of front, and then you ship something and this thing you ship is going to be around forever. You make your table, someone buys a table, you don't get to update the table. In digital design, we ship a B test all the time. We're constantly trying new things,

Starting point is 00:41:28 see if they work. If they don't, you're rolling back, no big deal. Completely different mindsets. Anything that you would leave people with in terms of a challenge to go try some of this stuff? One of the things that I feel like you're always at the forefront of thinking about trying this stuff, you're like an edge tinkerer

Starting point is 00:41:45 and are always aware of new platforms, new tools, new trends, and that so much of the power of these things is just giving them a try. Is there any favorite way that you've prompted friends or relatives or whatever to just get involved as a tangible way forward? Well, my prompt on the design side would just be to make anything. If you don't have an original idea, literally go recreate something that you already know

Starting point is 00:42:09 to get comfortable and familiar with the tools. If you have an idea, go try it. I think when it comes to more of the AI side, this is the time to lean into your curiosity and to use these models to learn as much as you can. about all the areas you've always wondered about, but never had a personalized tutor for. That'd be my prompt. I was thinking about our conversation this morning

Starting point is 00:42:32 and looking forward to it and how cool it must be for you to think about all the things that have been created with the platform that you created. Like what a cool. It's amazing. And that the era that we're entering maybe or have been in, this era of new general purpose technologies

Starting point is 00:42:49 that enable people to make stuff without having to ask for your permission, that must be a cool feeling for you to have to look back on and to look forward on to spread design beyond designers. I'm thankful you did it. And it's so fun, as always, to catch up and hear your view on the world. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Starting point is 00:43:09 If you enjoy this episode, check out join colossus.com. There you'll find every episode of this podcast complete with transcripts, show notes, and resources to keep learning. You can also sign up for our newsletter, Colossus Weekly, where we condense episodes to the big ideas, quotations, and more, as well as share the best content we find on the internet every week.

Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy - Dylan Field - Designing The Future - [Invest Like the Best, EP.407]

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.