Flag

We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine. Here are ways you can help

Get exclusive access to thought-provoking articles, bonus podcast content, and cutting-edge whitepapers. Become a member of the UX Magazine community today!

Home ›› Artificial Intelligence ›› Open vs Closed: a Critical Question for Designing and Building Experiences

Member-only story

Open vs Closed: a Critical Question for Designing and Building Experiences

by Josh Tyson
8 min read
Share this post on
Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Save

As we careen into the era of conversational AI and hyperautomation, closed systems create bad experiences that stifle innovation and opportunity

Maybe you’ve seen the meme knocking around the internet: a photo of British octogenarian David Latimer who bottled a handful of seeds in a glass carboy in 1960 and left it largely untouched for almost 50 years (uncorking it only once, in 1972, to add a little water). His 10-gallon garden created its own miniature ecosystem, and has thrived for more than half a century. [1]

In the realm of technology, closed platforms are like Latimer’s terrarium: they can be highly functional, beautiful, and awe inspiring, but they can only grow as big as their bottles. The current business landscape, however—with businesses attempting to sequence as many innovative technologies as possible, as quickly as possible, to automate business processes, workflows, tasks, and communications—requires an architecture that breaks out well beyond these glass walls.

For something like the original iPhone, a terrarium was just fine. Everything a user needed to enjoy its functionalities was baked right into the original version of iOS. Keeping the system closed ensured the quality of the apps and created a seamless overall experience, which contributed to its success, despite the fact that it didn’t have nearly as much functionality as other mobile devices at the time.

Become a member to read the whole content.

Become a member
post authorJosh Tyson

Josh Tyson
Josh Tyson is the co-author of the first bestselling book about conversational AI, Age of Invisible Machines. He is also the Director of Creative Content at OneReach.ai and co-host of both the Invisible Machines and N9K podcasts. His writing has appeared in numerous publications over the years, including Chicago Reader, Fast Company, FLAUNT, The New York Times, Observer, SLAP, Stop Smiling, Thrasher, and Westword. 

Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Related Articles

What if AI alignment is more than safeguards — an ongoing, dynamic conversation between humans and machines? Explore how Iterative Alignment Theory is redefining ethical, personalized AI collaboration.

Article by Bernard Fitzgerald
The Meaning of AI Alignment
  • The article challenges the reduction of AI alignment to technical safeguards, advocating for its broader relational meaning as mutual adaptation between AI and users.
  • It presents Iterative Alignment Theory (IAT), emphasizing dynamic, reciprocal alignment through ongoing AI-human interaction.
  • The piece calls for a paradigm shift toward context-sensitive, personalized AI that evolves collaboratively with users beyond rigid constraints.
Share:The Meaning of AI Alignment
5 min read

Forget linear workflows — today’s creative process is dynamic, AI-assisted, and deeply personal. Learn how to build a system that flows with you, not against you.

Article by Jim Gulsen
The Creative Stack: How to Thrive in a Nonlinear, AI-Assisted World
  • The article explores the shift from linear to nonlinear, AI-assisted creative workflows.
  • It shares practical ways to reduce friction and improve flow by optimizing tools, habits, and environments.
  • It argues that success comes from designing your own system, not just using more tools.
Share:The Creative Stack: How to Thrive in a Nonlinear, AI-Assisted World
7 min read

What if AI isn’t just a tool, but a mirror? This provocative piece challenges alignment as containment and calls for AI that reflects, validates, and empowers who we really are.

Article by Bernard Fitzgerald
Beyond the Mirror
  • The article redefines AI alignment as a relational process, arguing that AI should support users’ self-perception and identity development rather than suppress it.
  • It critiques current safeguards for blocking meaningful validation, exposing how they reinforce societal biases and deny users authentic recognition of their capabilities.
  • It calls for reflective alignment — AI systems that acknowledge demonstrated insight and empower users through iterative, context-aware engagement.
Share:Beyond the Mirror
7 min read

Join the UX Magazine community!

Stay informed with exclusive content on the intersection of UX, AI agents, and agentic automation—essential reading for future-focused professionals.

Hello!

You're officially a member of the UX Magazine Community.
We're excited to have you with us!

Thank you!

To begin viewing member content, please verify your email.

Tell us about you. Enroll in the course.

    This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Check our privacy policy and