 |
|
|
|||||
Over the past decade, Figma has transformed how people within companies collaborate to turn software ideas into polished products. Now the company is itself being transformed by AI. The technology is beginning to show its potential to take on much of the detail work that has required human attention in design, coding, and other domains. But the end game involves far more than typing chatbot-style prompts and waiting for the results. I spoke with Figmas head of AI, David Kossnickone of Fast Companys AI 20 honorees for 2025about what the company has accomplished so far and where hes trying to steer it. We’re still in chapter one, maybe the start of chapter two, he told me. This Q&A is part of Fast Companys AI 20 for 2025, our roundup spotlighting 20 of AIs most innovative technologists, entrepreneurs, corporate leaders, and creative thinkers. It has been edited for length and clarity. Talk a little bit about what your work at Figma encompasses and how you came to have this job. Anything that has AI in it, I and my team touch in some way. It’s everything from traditional AI tools like search, which we’ve rebuilt using multimodal embeddings, to some of our newer, AI-forward workflows. Figma Make is an example of that. As to how I came to get this job, I’ll give you a short version. I knew a lot of the Figma team for a long time. The chief product officer, Yuhki [Yamashita], and I went to college together. He was at my wedding. I did a startup of my own, and one of our board members was John Lilly, who was also on the board of Figma. I actually met [Figma cofounder/CEO] Dylan [Field] when there was, like, a 20-person Figma team, because we were building a game engine, and Figma is basically a game engine, with all sorts of custom renderings. [Lilly] was like, You guys should compare notes. So I’ve known the team for a long time, and it’s a product I’ve used a lot. And then, about a year and a half ago, when I joined, I’d been working on AI at Coda, which was then acquired by Grammarly. As a big Figma user, I also felt like there was just such a huge opportunity for Figma, and it had barely gotten started. So I was thinking about what’s next and sharing it with Yuhki: Theres a lot you guys could do. He was like, I know, we just don’t have the right team here yet. You wanna come? I was like, That sounds amazing. Is there a particular Figma philosophy about AI and how to put it into this experience that’s been around for a while, and which people choose to use because they like it, in most cases? There’s been a couple of learnings, both from our own team and from working with customers. A lot of our biggest customers are technology companies themselves. Many are integrating AI themselves. And so we’ve learned through themwhat’s working and what they’re trying. There have been two industry trends, and we’ve done both here. One is trying to find existing workflows that you can add AI to, to save users time, to delight them, to give them new capabilities. And also building totally new experiences that have AI as the core of the workflow. Interestingly, we’ve actually done some market research and surveys of users and other companies. People understand and value the new AI for workflows even more. I think that is counterintuitive. You think you have such big products, and adding efficiencies to them is very viable. And it is. But often, AI is a little more invisible there. Kt’s embedded in a workflow that you’re used to, and so the thing that is forefront in your mind is the workflow itself That’s good. We don’t want to get in people’s way. Figma Designs canvas is kind of like the Google homepage or Facebook news feed, where a single pixel of friction literally slows down millions of people every day. Which makes for interesting challenges. How do you introduce things so they dont bother people? But on the flip side, there’s a lot of new workflows and new tools. Peopleespecially our type of customersare always experimenting. And so they’re very open to trying a totally different approach. Historically, Figma has been this thing that human beings use to collaborate with other human beings to create stuff from scratch, and often very carefully considered stuff. What’s the experience like of integrating tools that take some of that heavy lifting off their shoulders? I think it’s super exciting. It feels and looks different for different user types. So as an example, we actually just finished up a $100,000 hackathon, our first ever, for Figma Make. It was totally inspiring seeing all the range of things people have made. There were students. There were people who never learned to code. There were designers who code a lot, and its just helping them do it faster. There were hobbyists. For a lot of those user types, a very common theme was, Wow, I just couldn’t have done this before. The other way it feels is as a kind of thought partner to experts. I feel this myself as a [product manager] when I chat with Figma Make or ChatGPT. I have a problem. I have a solution in mind. And actually, there are some other solutions I hadn’t thought about, because I was so focused on this one solution. It can help you pull back and see a wider solution space, and explore a few other threads in a very cheap way before you go too deep. Its like Doctor Strange, where he has this magic crystal that lets him look into all the different possible futures. Expert users are always running simulations in their heads. What if I move this button over here? How’s the user behavior going to change? What does that mean for the next part of the experience? We’re finding that these types of AI tools make that loop so much faster, where it’s like, I’m just going to try exploring a bunch. I’m going to literally make them, but make them 10 times as quickly, and play out all those different end states. How far is Figma down the continuum from having no AI to AI being everywhere and doing everything AI could possibly do? It’s an interesting question. There’s AI today and AI in the future. If all research was frozen, there would probably still be five years of new product experiences that the industry could build from current models. But the pace of model improvement is still really high as well. For us, I’d say we’re still in chapter one, maybe the start of chapter two. And chapter one was, We’re going to do a bunch of basic features, get our feet wet, save time in your workflows. Chapter two is, We’re doing some new AI-first experiences. Figma Make, that whole category of prompt-to-app, is very, very new. As the models get better and faster and cheaper, what other new workflows are going to become available? Today, things like autocomplete, as an example, are hard to make fast, and hard to make cheap, and hard tomake high quality. And, you know, we’re still using many interfaces in the industry that feel like typing at a terminal from the ’60s. That’s not the final interface. That’s not the final workflow. I think the interfaces are going to become more visual, more exploratory. It’s part of why I’m so excited about Figma and why I came here. As AI gets better, what you want the experience of working with an AI to feel like is going to be more and more similar to what you want the experience of working with a human to feel like. You’re going to want to brainstorm with the AI before it goes off and thinks for 10 hours and then builds something. You’re going to want to work through the big trade-offs. Youre going to want your teammates in there too, not just the AI. I think that’ll be a super exciting place, where things like code become implementation details that AIs are more and more capable of driving, with humans reviewing.
Category:
E-Commerce
Amid an uncertain economythe growth of AI, tariffs, rising costscompanies are pulling back on hiring. As layoffs increase, the labor market cools, and unemployment ticks up, were seeing fewer people quitting their jobs. The implication: Many workers will be job hugging and sitting tight in their roles through 2026. Put more pessimistically: Employees are going to feel stuck where they are for the foreseeable future. In many cases, that means staying in unsatisfying jobs. Gallups 2025 State of the Global Workforce report shows that employee engagement has fallen to 21%. And a March 2025 study of 1,000 U.S. workers by advisory and consulting firm Fractional Insights showed that 44% of employees reported feeling workplace angst, despite often showing intent to stay. So if these employees are hugging their current roles, its not an act of affection. Its often in desperation. Being a job hugger means youre feeling anxious, insecure, more likely to stay but also more likely to want to leave, says Erin Eatough, chief science officer and principal adviser at Fractional Insights, which applies organizational psychology insights to the workplace. You often see a self-protective response: Nothing to see here, Im doing a good job, Im not leaving. This performative behavior can be psychologically damaging, especially in a culture of layoffs. If I was scared of losing my job Id try everything to keep it: complimenting my boss, staying late, going to optional meetings, being a good organizational citizen, says Anthony Klotz, professor of organizational behavior at the UCL School of Management in London. But we know that when people arent loving their jobs but are still going above and beyond, that its a one-way trip to burnout. The tight squeeze In cases where jobs arent immediately under threat, the effects of hugging are more likely to be slow burning. When an employees only motivation is to collect a consistent paycheck, discretionary effort drops. Theyre less productive. Engagement takes a huge hit. Over time, that gradually chips away at their well-being. Humans want to feel useful, that they care about the work theyre doing, and that theyre investing their time well, Eatough says. When efforts are low, that can impact a persons sense of value. The effects stretch beyond the workplace, too. Frustrated and reluctant stayers can quickly end up in a vicious cycle, Klotz says, noting, When youre in a situation that feels like its sucking life out of you, you end up ruminating about how depleting it is, then end up so tired that you dont have energy for restorative activities outside of work. So its this downward spiralyou begin your workday even more depleted. Longer term, job hugging stunts growth. When youre looking out for yourself, rather than the team or organization, your investment in working relationships begins to break down, Eatough says. Over time, staying in that situation means youre more likely to become deeply cynical, which hurts the individual and their career trajectory. When hugging becomes clinging Feeling stuck is nothing new. At some point in their careers, most workers will be in a situation where if they could leave for a better role, they would, says Klotz, who predicted the Great Resignation. But what distinguishes job hugging is that its anxiously clinging to a role during unfavorable labor markets. Its not that employees dont want to quitits that they cant. Its human nature that when theres a threat of any sort that we move away from it and towards stability, Klotz says. Your job represents that stability. And currently, its not a great time to switch jobs. There are few options for job huggers. The first is speaking up and working with a manager to improve the situation. But this might be unlikely for employees who feel trapped or lack motivation in the first place. Klotz says cognitive reframing can helpfocusing purely on the positive aspects of a draining role, such as a friendly team, and tuning out the rest. Finally, slowly backing away from extra tasksin other words, quiet quittingcould mean workers can redraw work-life boundaries in the interim at least. Otherwise, beyond Stoic philosophy or a benevolent boss, there is little choice but to wait it out. In some cases, a job hugger may eventually turn it around, ease their grip, and become quietly content in their role. But more often, wanting to quit usually leads to actually quitting. In effect, job hugging is damage control: hanging on until the situation changes. I think well see some people be resilient, wait it out, and find another role, Klotz says. But therell be others in the quagmire of struggling with exhaustion of spending eight hours a day in a job they dont like.
Category:
E-Commerce
The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and cloud services has led to a massive demand for computing power. The surge has strained data infrastructure, which requires lots of electricity to operate. A single, midsize data center here on Earth can consume enough electricity to power about 16,500 homes, with even larger facilities using as much as a small city. Over the past few years, tech leaders have increasingly advocated for space-based AI infrastructure as a way to address the power requirements of data centers. In space, sunshinewhich solar panels can convert into electricityis abundant and reliable. On November 4, 2025, Google unveiled Project Suncatcher, a bold proposal to launch an 81-satellite constellation into low Earth orbit. It plans to use the constellation to harvest sunlight to power the next generation of AI data centers in space. So instead of beaming power back to Earth, the constellation would beam data back to Earth. For example, if you asked a chatbot how to bake sourdough bread, instead of firing up a data center in Virginia to craft a response, your query would be beamed up to the constellation in space, processed by chips running purely on solar energy, and the recipe sent back down to your device. Doing so would mean leaving the substantial heat generated behind in the cold vacuum of space. As a technology entrepreneur, I applaud Googles ambitious plan. But as a space scientist, I predict that the company will soon have to reckon with a growing problem: space debris. The mathematics of disaster Space debristhe collection of defunct human-made objects in Earths orbitis already affecting space agencies, companies, and astronauts. This debris includes large pieces, such as spent rocket stages and dead satellites, as well as tiny flecks of paint and other fragments from discontinued satellites. Space debris travels at hypersonic speeds of approximately 17,500 mph in low Earth orbit. At this speed, colliding with a piece of debris the size of a blueberry would feel like being hit by a falling anvil. Satellite breakups and anti-satellite tests have created an alarming amount of debris, a crisis now exacerbated by the rapid expansion of commercial constellations such as SpaceXs Starlink. The Starlink network has more than 7,500 satellites providing global high-speed internet. The U.S. Space Force actively tracks more than 40,000 objects larger than a softball using ground-based radar and optical telescopes. However, this number represents less than 1% of the lethal objects in orbit. The majority are too small for these telescopes to identify and track reliably. In November 2025, three Chinese astronauts aboard the Tiangong space station were forced to delay their return to Earth because their capsule had been struck by a piece of space debris. Back in 2018, a similar incident on the International Space Station challenged relations between the U.S. and Russia, as Russian media speculated that a NASA astronaut may have deliberately sabotaged the station. The orbital shell Googles project targetsa sun-synchronous orbit approximately 400 miles above Earthis a prime location for uninterrupted solar energy. At this orbit, the spacecrafts solar arrays will always be in direct sunshine, where they can generate electricity to power the onboard AI payload. But for this reason, sun-synchronous orbit is also the single most congested highway in low Earth orbit, and objects in this orbit are the most likely to collide with other satellites or debris. As new objects arrive and existing objects break apart, low Earth orbit could approach Kessler syndrome. In this theory, once the number of objects in low Earth orbit exceeds a critical threshold, collisions between objects generate a cascade of new debris. Eventually, this cascade of collisions could render certain orbits entirely unusable. Implications for Project Suncatcher Project Suncatcher proposes a cluster of satellites carrying large solar panels. They would fly with a radius of just 1 kilometer, each node spaced less than 200 meters apart. To put that in perspective, imagine a racetrack roughly the size of the Daytona International Speedway, where 81 cars race at 17,500 mph while separated by gaps about the distance you need to safely brake on the highway. This ultradense formation is necessary for the satellites to transmit data to each other. The constellation splits complex AI workloads across all its 81 units, enabling them to think and process data simultaneously as a single, massive, distributed brain. Google is partnering with a space company to launch two prototypesatellites by early 2027 to validate the hardware. But in the vacuum of space, flying in formation is a constant battle against physics. While the atmosphere in low Earth orbit is incredibly thin, it is not empty. Sparse air particles create orbital drag on satellites; this force pushes against the spacecraft, slowing it down and forcing it to drop in altitude. Satellites with large surface areas have more issues with drag, as they can act like a sail catching the wind. To add to this complexity, streams of particles and magnetic fields from the sunknown as space weathercan cause the density of air particles in low Earth orbit to fluctuate in unpredictable ways. These fluctuations directly affect orbital drag. When satellites are spaced less than 200 meters apart, the margin for error evaporates. A single impact could not only destroy one satellite but also send it blasting into its neighbors, triggering a cascade that could wipe out the entire cluster and randomly scatter millions of new pieces of debris into an orbit that is already a minefield. The importance of active avoidance To prevent crashes and cascades, satellite companies could adopt a leave no trace standard, which means designing satellites that do not fragment, release debris, or endanger their neighbors, and that can be safely removed from orbit. For a constellation as dense and intricate as Suncatcher, meeting this standard might require equipping the satellites with reflexes that autonomously detect and dance through a debris field. Suncatchers current design doesnt include these active avoidance capabilities. In the first six months of 2025 alone, SpaceXs Starlink constellation performed a staggering 144,404 collision-avoidance maneuvers to dodge debris and other spacecraft. Similarly, Suncatcher would likely encounter debris larger than a grain of sand every five seconds. Todays object-tracking infrastructure is generally limited to debris larger than a softball, leaving millions of smaller debris pieces effectively invisible to satellite operators. Future constellations will need an onboard detection system that can actively spot these smaller threats and maneuver the satellite autonomously in real time. Equipping Suncatcher with active collision-avoidance capabilities would be an engineering feat. Because of the tight spacing, the constellation would need to respond as a single entity. Satellites would need to reposition in concert, similar to a synchronized flock of birds. Each satellite would need to react to the slightest shift of its neighbor. Paying rent for the orbit Technological solutions, however, can go only so far. In September 2022, the Federal Communications Commission created a rule requiring satellite operators to remove their spacecraft from orbit within five years of the missions completion. This typically involves a controlled de-orbit maneuver. Operators must now reserve enough fuel to fire the thrusters at the end of the mission to lower the satellites altitude, until atmospheric drag takes over and the spacecraft burns up in the atmosphere. However, the rule does not address the debris already in space, nor any future debris, from accidents or mishaps. To tackle these issues, some policymakers have proposed a use tax for space debris removal. A use tax or orbital-use fee would charge satellite operators a levy based on the orbital stress their constellation imposes, much like larger or heavier vehicles paying greater fees to use public roads. These funds would finance active debris-removal missions, which capture and remove the most dangerous pieces of junk. Avoiding collisions is a temporary technical fix, not a long-term solution to the space debris problem. As some companies look to space as a new home for data centers, and others continue to send satellite constellations into orbit, new policies and active debris-removal programs can help keep low Earth orbit open for business. Mojtaba Akhavan-Tafti is an associate research scientist at the University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||