DES 191B · Spring 2026 · UC Davis
A ten-week studio where AI is a thinking partner, not a shortcut. The tool comes in the middle. What happens before and after is yours.
The course
This course takes a position. AI is already part of how designers work. The question is not whether to use it, but how to use it without losing the thing that makes the work yours: the question you chose, the judgment you developed, the thing only you could have made.
The risk this course is designed against is a kind of funnel thinking: students converging too quickly on predictable, AI-shaped solutions, producing similar work from the same systems. The course does not counter this by restricting the tools. It counters it by insisting on the steps that surround them.
Over ten weeks, students build a methodology, not a toolbox. Week 1, they make something strange with AI and write about the first time they encountered it. Week 10, they return to that writing. The gap between those two moments is the course.
AI is never the first move. It is never the last. Everything between is where the work happens.
The framework
By the midpoint of the quarter, students have already been running a five-phase process without knowing its name. Week 5 is when it gets named. GENIE is not new to you. It is the name for what you have already been doing.
GENIE is not a productivity tool. It intervenes in the design process itself. AI enters at Implement as a mid-process partner, calibrated differently in divergent phases than in convergent ones. What opens and closes every cycle is human judgment. Hover each phase to open it.
The quarter
Instructor
Jean H Menezes
Design · UC Davis
I built this course because I couldn't find a methodology for this moment: one that took authorship seriously, treated AI as a thinking partner, and didn't collapse into either panic or enthusiasm. The rule came first. You never start with AI, and you never end with it. Everything else followed from that.
GENIE was built inside the course, not before it. I named it in Week 5, after students had already been running the loop without knowing it. That sequence was intentional. The framework only lands when it names something the student already knows in their hands. It is not a productivity tool. It intervenes in the design process itself, which means most of its important effects are about how students learn to see, question, and revise.
The boundary I kept returning to in building this: AI can expand what is possible, but it should not replace the need for judgment. A responsible process is one where students use these systems to explore further, not to think less. The work here came from students who held to that distinction.