How To Argue Against AI-First Research

Companies have been turning their attention to “synthetic,” AI-driven user testing. However, as convenient as it might seem, it’s dangerous, expensive, and usually diminishes user value. Let’s take a closer look at why exactly it is problematic and how we can argue against it to make a case for UX research with real users. Part of [Smart Interface Design Patterns](https://smart-interface-design-patterns.com) by yours truly.

Mar 31, 2025 - 16:45

With AI upon us, companies have recently been turning their attention to “synthetic” user testing — AI-driven research that replaces UX research. There, questions are answered by AI-generated “customers,” human tasks “performed” by AI agents.

However, it’s not just for desk research or discovery that AI is used for; it’s an actual usability testing with “AI personas” that mimic human behavior of actual customers within the actual product. It’s like UX research, just… well, without the users.

If this sounds worrying, confusing, and outlandish, it is — but this doesn’t stop companies from adopting AI “research” to drive business decisions. Although, unsurprisingly, the undertaking can be dangerous, risky, and expensive and usually diminishes user value.

This article is part of our ongoing series on UX. You can find more details on design patterns and UX strategy in Smart Interface Design Patterns