Play, experimentation, and the rise of the hybrid creative

Imagine an engine that generates alternative endings for stories, a 2x2 visual tool for choosing which films to watch,  or a digital game of telephone that transforms a poem into something altogether different, like a location on a map. For Khyati Trehan, a Design Lead at Google Creative Lab, these are the weird, improbable, delightful explorations that AI is catalyzing.

Trehan’s lifelong curiosity for making began at Mirambika, a progressive school in New Delhi, the city where she was born and raised. “When you give children complete freedom, they choose to learn,” she says. That love of learning took her from the National Institute of Design to a globetrotting creative career spanning interning at a type foundry, creating AR experiences for Snapchat Spectacles and Instagram, producing 3D editorial illustrations for The New Yorker, The New York Times, and WIRED, working as a communication designer at IDEO’s former Munich studio, and “one crazy Oscars’ project the year of Will Smith and Chris Rock.” 

She’s now at Google Creative Lab in New York, working on projects that “humanize complex technology and remind people why they love Google.” She collaborates with a diverse team of designers, writers, and technologists, united by a desire for creative freedom and a novel approach to problem-solving.

‍I spoke to Trehan recently about how AI enhances her creativity, her evolving mindset as a designer who embraces coding, and the importance of fostering play and experimentation in organizations to promote AI adoption.

‍Ed White (EW): Do you remember when you first started using AI?‍

Khyati Trehan (KT): I got early access to DALL-E before it launched in 2021. Ironically, I remember liking the blurry loading states more than the final images. The results never quite stuck because nothing that came from my prompts felt like…me. There wasn’t much control over the output. I was looking for tools that would feed my creative process, and “one-shot AI”  didn’t do it for me.

An interest in using LLMs to turn natural language into software code happened more recently. My friend Pedro Sanches, a brilliant creative technologist, designer, and Creative Lab alumnus, came over for tea and shared some sketches he’d made using what he called “coding sans coding.” (This was before “vibe coding” was a term.) I was much more excited by that approach because it felt like something I could incorporate into my practice by building tools to help me explore new places without them feeling completely unfamiliar.

Those early experiments provided initial insights into my personal philosophy on how and when I use AI. My goal has never been to rely on AI to do all the work; instead, it’s about exploring how AI can help me supercharge and advance existing ideas.

EW: How is AI changing your team and Google as an organization?

KT: As the boundaries around our disciplines blur, the number of hybrid creatives is growing. Writers are making films, graphic designers are building writing tools, animators are engaging in creative coding, and developers are designing interfaces. There’s still a distinct difference between the vision and “flavor” of what I might design and develop as a graphic designer and what a creative technologist might create using the new capabilities that AI unlocks for both of us. Our individual experiences, values, core strengths, skills, and knowledge still define what makes us unique, even when we have the same tools at our disposal. 

EW: What are the things you and your team are learning, as designers, about using this technology?

KT: I think we’re realizing that regardless of how you look at the creative process, the shape of it remains the same. We still start by playing and experimenting to explore the edges of technology. We engineer every aspect of the applications we create, ensuring that we consider people’s needs. In fact, we now spend even more time and energy focusing on what matters to people and asking ourselves: “When we can make anything, what do we choose to make?”

While engineers are trained to focus on efficiency and optimization—and form the backbone of Google—creatives, when given the opportunity to lead research and gain early insights, instinctively seek out emotion and play. We naturally discover the right metaphors and interfaces that make complex systems clear.

EW: What’s worrying you about AI and design, and why?

KT: With every big shift, it’s wise to be cautiously optimistic. I often reflect on how we studied design in school: manually painting a color wheel and using our judgment to create the right shade of orange that would sit between red and yellow, even when the Blend Tool existed in Illustrator. Putting time and effort into these exercises sharpened our skills and helped us develop a strong foundation, which remains useful regardless of the tools we use. We shouldn’t forget that. You can use AI as a crutch, or you can use it to unlock or supercharge your existing skills, expertise, and ideas. To me, that’s the distinction between an effective use of AI and slop.

EW: What are the really concrete ways AI has changed your craft as a designer at Google? 

KT: The tools you use change the way you think. When I was learning 3D modeling and texturing years ago, it quite literally unlocked a new dimension in my graphic design practice. I’d surprise myself with the ideas that came to me and what I was capable of with this new ability.

This holds true for using AI. I’ve added surfaces like Gemini Canvas, AI Studio, and Flow to my toolkit to choreograph Google’s models and APIs. Mindset-wise, it’s made a lot of us hybrids. Now that we can build things, I find that in meetings, designers show more often than they tell.

I still design using traditional tools, except now, once I translate the visual and the flow into a clickable prototype, I can iterate in the same environment, and the work becomes more lived-in. 

EW: How has that changed you as a creative, and why?

KT: It’s definitely a leap. It’s like the difference between learning about qualitative interviews versus being in the room yourself. You can understand both objectively, but with the latter, you feel more connected to the learnings. For example, I’ve designed loading states plenty of times, but now that I’m closer to the front end, I’m bringing so much more of my design flavor and delight to them. I feel more comfortable taking risks and taking departures from what’s deemed standard in the space. 

EW: What’s an example of that?

KT: I’ve been designing digital experiences for very personal, everyday, specific, and idiosyncratic needs. For example, I got my hands on Ted Chiang’s Exhalation, a collection of short stories, and fell in love with them. I’ve been inventing alternate endings for some of them and extending his beautiful worldbuilding.

This led to the creation of Story Arc Engine, a narrative-building tool that allows users to deconstruct stories using a five-part narrative arc. By tweaking one part of the arc, users can see how a change in the plot affects the rest of the story and generate new narratives based on their own plot ideas.

EW: How else does AI change what you’re designing? 

KT: Because I’m now building both the final output and the intermediary tools that help me get there, I share both: the final product and the tool I vibe-coded to create it. This means that others can use the tools I make, often in unexpected ways. For example, someone once used Story Arc Engine to draft their next career move, hiding a sabbatical in the narrative. 

EW: What other examples of these types of projects have you been working on?

KT: I’ve recently made several tools for myself. Around the World in Good News is a digital newspaper that explores uplifting historical events and stories of human achievement from across the globe and throughout time. Another project, 2x2 Anything, emerged from my desire to make more informed decisions for movie night. It's a concept-mapping experiment where you define two conceptual axes, set the context, and click anywhere on the coordinate map to generate a fitting concept or summon an existing result. My most recent sketch, Machine Telephone, is a playful game in which you enter an input, pass it sequentially through different media and models, and observe how context shifts, translates, or gets misunderstood over time. For example, you might see a poem translated to a specific location on the map or a song transformed into a spherical material. Now that mediums feel less siloed, and those that remain siloed are easier to learn about, my first instinct is no longer to dismiss an idea just because it initially seems unfeasible.

EW: What advice would you give leaders who want their orgs to use AI effectively?

KT: An urgent tone from execs and leadership, coupled with a top-down mandate and a lack of concrete guidance, isn’t helpful. It only leads to confusion and stress, and, ironically, slows down the actual work

Instead, explicitly give people permission to play. Play is a powerful tool, especially when you’re faced with ambiguity. Give people access to a variety of tools and functions, and offer learning resources. Let people stumble upon new paths, and figure out which tedious parts of their process AI can take off their plates. 

EW: How do you think AI will transform your industry over the next five years?

KT: AI is already transforming industries by narrowing the gap between different disciplines. When the mechanics of creation are no longer a bottleneck, and the effort it takes to make things decreases, where does our time and attention go? It comes down to the core of why we create: our taste, the sum total of our experiences, our irrationality, our perspective, and our vision. Maybe we’ll just learn more about what makes us uniquely human along the way.

“Design in the Age of AI” is a series of conversations with designers and makers from across industries and disciplines, building the future with AI, today.