Walking through downtown Santiago used to be fun.

When I had just finished university, I had that dangerous mix of enthusiasm and arrogance many young designers have. I looked at signs, storefronts, banners and ads and thought:

“This could have been done better.”

And, to be fair, many times it was true.

There were strange compositions, impossible typefaces, colors that looked chosen with eyes closed and logos that had probably been created by the owner’s nephew on a Sunday afternoon.

But there is something I miss today.

They were different.

Every business seemed to have its own personality. Some good, some bad, some frankly questionable, but they were unique. Downtown was a kind of graphic mosaic where hundreds of businesses tried to stand out in their own way.

It was imperfect.

It was chaotic.

It was human.

And above all, it was diverse.

Today, things are different.

Curiously, the average level of design has risen dramatically. Tools like Canva, Figma, Adobe Express, Midjourney, Firefly, ChatGPT and dozens of AI-powered platforms have democratized access to design.

What once required hiring an agency or a specialized designer can now be solved in an afternoon.

In many ways, that is excellent news.

Small businesses can look professional. Entrepreneurs can launch a brand without spending millions. The minimum visual quality of the market has improved enormously.

But there is an unexpected consequence.

More and more things look alike.

The same gradients.

The same illustrations.

The same photos.

The same icon styles.

The same website structures.

The same texts.

The same prompts.

The same references.

It is as if we had replaced creative chaos with a kind of algorithmic order.

And the question is interesting:

Are we designing better, or are we simply designing the same?

The democratization paradox

Artificial intelligence and modern platforms did something extraordinary: they lowered the barrier to entry.

Ten years ago, a small business with limited resources would probably have had a fairly amateur visual identity.

Today, it can access surprisingly good visual results.

But when millions of people use the same tools, trained on the same data and optimized to produce results that work for the majority, something inevitable happens.

Convergence.

Researchers call this phenomenon “creative homogenization” or “aesthetic convergence.”

The idea is simple.

When systems recommend the same solutions, people end up making similar decisions.

Not because they are less creative.

But because the tools are designed to offer safe answers.

And safe answers are rarely memorable.

The problem with looking professional

For years, the challenge was to look professional.

Today, the challenge is to look different.

Because professional is no longer a competitive advantage.

It is the starting point.

When everyone has access to good templates, good photos, good typefaces and good AI assistants, visual quality stops being a differentiator.

Differentiation depends again on something much harder.

Ideas.

Strategy.

Personality.

The ability to make decisions that are not in a template.

The curious thing is that AI is not to blame

It would be easy to blame artificial intelligence.

But I think the problem is deeper.

Tools have always influenced results.

First it was stock photography.

Then design frameworks.

Then social networks.

Now it is AI.

The technology changes, but the temptation is the same: choosing the fastest and safest path.

And usually, the safest path is the one everyone else already chose.

Maybe we are entering a new era

Maybe we are living through something similar to what happened when digital photography appeared.

At first, everyone did the same thing.

Over time, people started using the tool in unexpected ways.

Maybe the same will happen with artificial intelligence.

When everyone can generate spectacular images, spectacular images stop being surprising.

When everyone can create content quickly, speed stops being an advantage.

And when everyone can look professional, the real difference returns to where it always was.

Having something interesting to say.

Because in the end, the tool was never the advantage.

The advantage was the eye.

And for now, that is still human.