The Form UX one is hilarious. It took a streamlined form used to convert and added enormous marketing copy that's more attention grabbing than the form itself. If you look closely they ran the `/simplify` command, haha.
This is the most egregious one in my eyes, too. I've run A/B tests on a few signup forms and without fail it validates the standard practice: the lowest drop-off rate comes from removing every possible obstacle and distraction. I'd bet a few dollars (which is as much as I'll ever bet) that design update would perform worse. The tool is almost intriguing as a _reductio_ of certain design practices.
The "after" designs all replace the rather generic "SV startup with a tailwind UI" with this serif font, parchment color look. It looks very similar to Anthropic's branding. I guess it looks marginally more distinctive? Though it seems to replace one knock-off visual identity for another. But the claim is that the tool here is implementing best practices through a sophisticated "design vocabulary", and in that sense the examples strike me as manifest failures. I find the general legibility of the "before" designs to be much better.
Author here, fair feedback. These examples were rushed, and didn't come out great. For this particular one, the concept was 'trustworthy, expensive life sciences company" of sorts, but it's still not a great before/after example. Removed for now, and will switch out for better examples soon.
I think the difficulty for AI to learn this, in general, is the missing out of the day-to-day experience living as a human, because that is what shapes our viewing habits. And those are what a good graphic design interacts with.
I'm glad it's not just me. One would hope that `BEFORE` and `AFTER` would imply `WORSE` and `BETTER`, but from their examples they somehow they managed to shoehorn `MEH` in there.
