GenUI vs. Vibe Coding: Who’s Designing?

Why Read This from an HCI Perspective

This article helps you distinguish whether AI is merely a ‘tool for creating interfaces’ or the ‘agent making design decisions.’ From an HCI/UX practitioner’s perspective, it also clarifies differences in accountability, evaluation criteria, and user expectations that arise when genUI and vibe coding are conflated. In particular, it highlights why existing usability evaluation alone is insufficient once AI starts proposing or generating interactions that users did not explicitly specify.

CIT's Commentary

From a CIT perspective, the core of this article is less about the technical potential of generative interfaces and more about the ‘delegation of design judgment.’ Vibe coding is closer to automation that quickly translates a user’s intent into code, while genUI is more challenging in HCI because it proactively suggests interfaces through situational awareness and contextual judgment. However, this difference isn’t just a difference in product features—it’s also a difference in the responsibility structure. The moment AI decides what UI to generate, we must evaluate not only the quality of the output, but also when we should intervene, why that decision was made, and whether users can trust it. CIT especially argues that as ‘invisible AI’ operates less visibly, the design of explainability and the ability to intervene becomes even more important.

Questions to Consider While Reading

• Q.In genUI, what signals and criteria can be used to determine the ‘appropriate moment’ for AI to generate a UI?
• Q.What design patterns can ensure intervention capability without harming trust when AI proposes interactions the user didn’t request?
• Q.When evaluating vibe coding and genUI separately, how should usability, satisfaction, and work-efficiency metrics be structured differently?