Hey, thanks for that clarification. I entirely agree - that's why there's still a cost here for my time. It's all too easy for a 'novice' to just clunk through with AI and create something bad. With all of AI use, human taste and experience remains entirely critical to success.

Hey Devon, thanks for adding your thoughts.

The money and time saving is a huge part. I'd favour a good answer quickly than a perfect answer slowly in most cases.

I think it's also clear to me that a lot of the things highlighted are actually closer to website design trends than 'Claude' design. I've designed websites for over 10 years and there is often a sweep of similar looking features that sites take on. When I first started, they all had a picture at the top that wasn't full screen, with a solid colour navigation bar. Then suddenly everyone went to a full screen image that was visible behind the navigation bar. Then it was large titles... So in a sense, you're picking up 'current web design trends' more than 'a tell' for AI Claude design.

Hey, thanks for the comment. This actually wasn't made by Claude, and a few of the things you highlight are preexisting features of the UF brand.

I take your point on things looking similar, but we already have this issue with lots of platforms. I could likewise spot a Squarespace site a mile away. That said, at least this time we're tied to an engine that's got significantly less boundaries.

Also, in terms of my offer, I'll still be designing the website, not just saying to AI 'make this site for me'

Ha, brilliant. I took that as a brief... https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/SjTnLKdJQ4vEGbpop/introducing-the-centre-for-research-on-effective-action

EA branding repeatedly converges on the same cluster of visual and verbal choices. Seeing the examples together makes that convergence unusually obvious.

No, I wouldn’t expect anyone to distinguish Nike, Adidas and Puma by “their blacks” alone; their brands are differentiated through other highly distinctive assets. My argument is that many EA organisations converge across several assets at once: colour, typography, imagery, tone and abstract language all appear the same or similar.

Your version of a game sounds great, I would love to see that too.

Both fixed - thanks for flagging!

Thanks for the link to my post. As you know, I love your work and excited to see how it grows.

Great piece, thanks for writing it. Totally agree with your view on this!

Hey, thanks so much for your comment. I'm really pleased you find it useful :)

Hey, thanks for the comment.

This is a total misunderstanding of what marketing is. Marketing is strategy (How do we get to where we need to be? How do we engage the right people? Who are the right people? How will we know if it's working?), not design. I would recommend that you review your understanding of marketing as it's much more complex and critical to success than design.

Calling marketing “poisoning” strategy only makes sense if you think impact happens automatically once the evidence is correct. It does not.

A strategy can be perfectly evidence-based and still fail because no one notices it, understands it, trusts it, or changes behaviour. That failure mode is extremely common in EA work and it is rarely about the core intervention being wrong. It is about adoption.

Marketing, at its best, is simply the discipline that asks whether a theoretically sound idea will actually be processed and acted on by real humans with limited attention, competing priorities, and imperfect reasoning.

Ignoring that layer does not make a strategy more epistemically pure. It just shifts the risk from “is this true?” to “will anyone meaningfully engage with this?” and then acts surprised when uptake is low.

If the objective is real-world impact rather than theoretical elegance, then stress-testing for salience, comprehension, and behavioural response is not a contamination of strategy. It is part of doing strategy properly.