I've been thinking a lot lately about how AI is being implemented into products, companies, and features. What I'm seeing everywhere are cookie-cutter, obvious implementations that feel shortsighted and rushed. Everyone seems to be in this frantic race to slap "AI" on everything possible and promote these AI things aggressively. I call this the "AI Checkbox Fallacy" – the misguided belief that simply adding AI features to a product checklist automatically creates value.
But here's what I believe: the best use of AI is subtle and powerful. It doesn't draw attention to itself or flash neon "AI INSIDE" signs. It simply makes an existing experience significantly better.
The most valuable AI isn't about creating entirely new AI-specific products (though those have their place). It's about taking existing algorithms or features and enhancing them to be more helpful and useful. It's evolutionary rather than revolutionary - the next logical step in making products serve users better.
Take Duolingo, for example. Their core learning algorithm uses AI in a subtle way, adapting to your pace and customizing your learning path without making a big deal about it. That's good AI. Then there's Duolingo MAX, their explicitly AI-branded feature. While fun and useful, it feels more forced, lacking the same thoughtful integration.
As someone who spends a lot of my time in Webflow as a freelance web designer and Webflow dev the recent release of Webflow's AI Site Builder to their "AI at Webflow" suite is what sparked me to write about this. In this AI Site Builder like every other ai site builder you input a few prompts, and it generates pages and sections. Sure, it's impressive technology, but is it really solving the right problem?
I can't help but think a better implementation would have been enhancing their existing template marketplace experience. Imagine using AI to find better template suggestions based on your needs, then customizing colors and content automatically for your specific project. That would leverage what Webflow already does well while removing genuine friction points for users.
What's particularly interesting is that this approach would have aligned better with Webflow's own original AI vision. In April 2023, Webflow co-founder Vlad Magdalin wrote about their AI strategy, emphasizing subtle integrations that enhance existing workflows:
"At the end of the day, AI-generated content is only as good as the development environment the content is dropped into — and the human being orchestrating the entire creative process... the tools that let you deeply customize, manipulate, and build upon what AI generates will ultimately create the biggest impact."
Vlad outlined plans for contextual AI assistance directly in the Designer, an AI copilot for iterating faster within existing workflows, and AI-customized templates – all examples of enhancing core experiences rather than creating standalone AI features. The recent AI Site Builder seems to represent a shift away from this integrated philosophy toward more of a checkbox implementation.
This evolution at Webflow perfectly illustrates how even companies with thoughtful AI visions can drift toward more marketable but less helpful implementations.
The difference is intention and thought. Is the AI implementation:
When companies add AI just to say they have AI features, we get flashy but ultimately less useful tools. This is the AI Checkbox Fallacy in action – prioritizing the appearance of innovation over actual user value. When they focus on making existing experiences better through intelligence, we get genuine advancement.
Let's look at some examples that illustrate this distinction:
Spotify doesn't promote an "AI DJ" feature (though they have one now). Instead, they've spent years refining algorithms that understand your taste and suggest music you'll love. The intelligence works invisibly to create better playlists and recommendations. That's subtle AI that genuinely improves the core experience.
Compare two approaches: One photo editor might promote an "AI TRANSFORM" button that completely changes your image with minimal control. Another might use AI to power better selection tools, more accurate retouching, and smarter adjustments that still leave creative control with the user. The second approach enhances rather than replaces the core workflow.
Gmail's smart compose and categorization features don't interrupt your experience or make you use a separate "AI email writer." They quietly integrate into how you already use email, saving time and reducing friction. You might not even think of them as AI, but they make the product substantially better.
Maps applications like Google Maps and Apple Maps already exemplify this subtle AI approach. They don't bombard you with "AI NAVIGATION" buttons, but instead quietly use intelligence to:
None of these features are explicitly labeled as "AI," yet they make the navigation experience significantly better by understanding context and patterns. The technology disappears while the benefits remain front and center.
The best AI implementation feels less like a new feature and more like the product suddenly understands you better. It's intelligence that serves you rather than showcases itself.
The rush to implement AI features without careful consideration can lead to serious problems beyond just creating subpar product experiences. We've seen several high-profile examples of this:
When Figma first introduced AI-generated designs last year, they faced significant backlash from their community. Why? They had trained their models on user data without explicit consent or clear opt-out options. The controversy wasn't just about the quality of the AI feature, but about the fundamental respect for user trust and data privacy.
Apple Intelligence was announced with great fanfare, but the rollout left many users frustrated by partially implemented features, regional limitations, and capabilities that didn't match the marketing hype. By prioritizing the "AI announcement" over ensuring a complete and polished experience, they undermined user confidence in what could have been a more thoughtfully integrated set of features.
As mentioned earlier, Webflow's approach prioritizes showcasing AI capabilities rather than enhancing the core problems users face with template selection and customization. This represents a classic example of the AI Checkbox Fallacy – adding an AI feature to tick a box on the product roadmap instead of addressing genuine user needs.
These examples highlight a crucial point: when companies rush AI features to market without thoughtful implementation, they risk not just creating lackluster products but actively damaging user trust and community goodwill. The costs of getting this wrong extend beyond product metrics to the core relationship between companies and their users.
I'm not against AI-specific products like Perplexity, ChatGPT, Midjourney, Visual Electric, or Lummi for photo generation - they serve their purpose. What I'm advocating for is thoughtful integration of AI into existing products in ways that don't scream "look at our AI!" but instead whisper "notice how much better this experience has become."
The products that will win in the long run aren't those racing to implement any AI feature they can think of, but those carefully considering how intelligence can remove friction from their users' lives in meaningful ways. Companies that escape the AI Checkbox Fallacy will create experiences that truly serve their users rather than just serving their marketing departments.
The best AI, like the best design, often goes unnoticed - because it just works.