Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth
00:04:48 · S1, Andrew Ambrosino
[00:04:48] S1: Yeah. [00:04:50] S0: So I guess the short answer is it's backwards. And it's not that people are doing fundamentally different roles or focusing on different things or that even skillsets have vanished or that roles have just disappeared. It's that it's backwards. The implementation is actually not the expensive part anymore. It's, dare I say, taste. But it's the curation process. It's like of those 90 attempts, what's good about these? What should we fold into other aspects of this? How should we frame this? Should it be part of this other feature? How many segments should be in the toggle? All of those things. Yeah. [00:06:46] S1: Here's what we're going to build, here's the feature, here's the strategies, PRD. Today, what you're describing, which makes all the sense, is people just create a prototype. And what you're saying is people across the company have kind of similar ideas. And now instead of a doc, they create their little prototype. And that leads to kind of 90 different things people can look at and maybe pick here's a direction we want to go down. Is that the idea?
00:07:05 · Andrew Ambrosino
[00:07:05] S0: Yeah. There's a lot of this. And it's not just happening here. You've seen many product leaders say PRDs are dead and prototypes are in. And I actually don't believe this at all. I think that one of the interesting things that is happening right now is that because implementation has gotten so cheap across every medium, it's very tempting to jump straight to a prototype. Especially if you're not an engineer. Especially if you've never been able to write code or never been interested or never had the time, it's really tempting to say like, "PRDs are dead. Let me just show you what I mean." What I've also noticed though is that for engineers, it's really tempting to write a lot of documents, a lot of documents that are not worth reading. This is no shade on people writing documents. It's that if implementation is abundant, then it's really important to pick the right format for the point you're trying to make. If that point is product clarity around a vague area, then it might actually be a document. If what you're trying to do is get something in people's hands to try out and to stress test an interaction pattern, it's a prototype. But I think this is kind of the funny thing now, which is that it's really important to pick the medium.
00:08:28 · S1
[00:08:28] S1: There's this term that a podcast guest shared that I think about when you say this, which is it's called the primal mark. When a designer or a painter or an artist just creates the first mark on a painting or a piece of art, that mark is what you start to respond to. And so everything kind of trickles down from that first mark you make. And what I'm hearing you saying is sometimes the prototype is the wrong first thing to do because then you're just responding to this prototype versus a different idea versus a bigger idea. So I love hearing this. So everyone's just like, "Okay, forget it. No more writing, no more docs, no more PRDs." You're saying, "They're actually still useful for specific use cases."
00:09:04 · Andrew Ambrosino
[00:09:04] S0: Yeah. I think too, there's this part of the previous world was that the medium implied it had baked in a lot of signal around where in the process something was. So if you're seeing something that feels like the app in production, that means that it's late in the process. That assumptions have been de-risked, that design has looked at this, that this is a good business goal. And now those things are sort of divorced. And the reason it was that way is because it was hard to get resources to build the thing until it was properly de-risked. And now that's just out the window. And so I think it's really important to start saying, "Look, we can have prototypes. We can have documents. Are we clear around what this is doing?" Because to your point, you do not want to over anchor on this thing that was meant to be an exploration, but now it looks so production ready that, oh, visually it's ready for prod. But it's not actually the right model of where the research is going or what users are asking for or what's right for the business. Not to overdo the taste thing, but it's once again, it's like the taste to know what to work on, how to present that information, how to achieve the goals, what medium to use is emerging as the most important thing to do. And that's in every field.
00:10:26 · S1
[00:10:26] S1: What is taste when you talk about good taste? Is it what you described deciding here's the thing we're going to invest in? Is it also once you have a thing, is this right? Is this the thing to shift? Talk about when you think about what is good taste, good judgment, what is that concretely? Because people hear this word, they're like, "Oh, I have good taste. I know it." What does it look like in practice?
00:10:46 · Andrew Ambrosino, S1
[00:10:46] S0: Yeah. It's funny. There was a tweet, I'm too online. There was a tweet, I think it was yesterday from the head of product at Linear, I might be getting that wrong, sorry to anybody, who said, "People overemphasize the aesthetic part of what taste means." And they used, Paul Graham's great, but they used him as an example. Saying, "Paul Graham clearly has great taste and wears cargo shorts." We got to tease out what taste means a little bit and there's a lot of nuance here. I think it's all of the above to what you mentioned. There is an aesthetic part to it, but there's also a systems thinking part of it, like how does this fit in the system? There's a where are we going and what theme is this part of? There's how to present this. A lot of it is wider context. And obviously there are parts of taste that are like, "Hey, this interaction animation doesn't fit in the semantic meaning it's supposed to." It's too snappy for what it's actually trying to convey. And that's incredibly important and I focus probably too much on that. But there's the like, "What should this be?" If we can build anything, what's the goal here and how do we get there? That I think is actually the real taste question here. [00:12:06] S1: When I hear things like this, I always wonder where will human brains continue to be valuable as AI becomes stronger and better and doing more of the work? And it feels like taste is a part of it. Something I think about along these lines is just AI is still very bad at actual design. The output of AI is not great. [00:12:24] S0: Yeah.