AI Assistant is now live in InDesign 21.4 (Beta)

Nobody asked for it. Everyone hates it.

The bugs get worse and multiply, the software lags even on my M4 MBP with 48G RAM, but we get crappy AI Alt text generation (that not only doesn’t work, is on by default, but LOL they want money for it), and other AI slop that zero pro designers need or asked for. Corner the market and then corner your customers, right Adobe?

Sorry for the complete rewrite - I think my prior was too soft:

 

I want to raise the more uncomfortable part of this, because I think it matters.

The barrier to entry for design and production work is already extremely low. Anyone can open software, call themselves a designer, and offer services to clients. That does not mean they understand production. It does not mean they understand structure, accessibility, styles, prepress, approvals, revisions, exports, compliance, or what happens when a bad file moves through a real supply chain.

That distinction is important.

Creating production-ready InDesign files is a professional skill. It takes time, mistakes, training, judgement, and experience. It is learned through real work, not just by asking where a menu item is.

So when Adobe talks about AI helping users create “production-ready” InDesign documents faster, I think that wording deserves serious pushback.

A production-ready file is not just a file that looks finished on screen. It is a file that has been built correctly, can be revised safely, can export correctly, can survive review, can be handed to another professional, and can move through print, accessibility, legal, corporate, pharmaceutical, government, or publishing workflows without introducing hidden problems.

That is not a simple task, and Adobe should not be presenting it as one.

Take the example given: “How do I create a table of contents?” On the surface, that sounds harmless. But in a serious document, a table of contents is not just a command. It depends on paragraph styles, document structure, heading hierarchy, page numbering, parent pages, running headers, footnotes, endnotes, accessibility tagging, export requirements, and often client-specific rules.

If someone gets to the end of a 300-page report and only then discovers that the table of contents depends on proper styles, the issue is not that they needed help finding a feature. The issue is that the document was probably not prepared correctly from the beginning.

That is where AI can become problematic if it is framed badly.

The concern is not that new users should not learn InDesign. Of course they should. The concern is that non-professionals should not be encouraged to think production-ready work is simple because an AI assistant can talk them through isolated tasks.

Lowering friction is not always the same as improving quality. In production work, some of the friction exists for a reason. It is where checks happen. It is where judgement happens. It is where a professional catches the thing that would otherwise become a client problem, a printer problem, an accessibility problem, a compliance problem, or a costly correction later.

The same concern applies to “bulk text/image/style edits with a single prompt.” That may sound efficient in marketing copy, but in real production workflows, mass changes are exactly where mistakes can multiply quickly. Revisions often need to be interpreted, applied, checked, proofed, approved, and traceable. Speed without control is not a production benefit. It is a risk.

This is the wider damage I think Adobe is underestimating.

When AI lowers the bar further and gives inexperienced users the impression that professional production work can be shortcut, the failures do not stay contained. They land with clients, printers, accessibility reviewers, regulated approval teams, and other designers who have to clean up the damage.

When those jobs go wrong, the client does not always say “this person did not know production.” They say “designers are unreliable,” or “Adobe files are a nightmare,” or “we cannot trust this workflow.”

That erodes trust in Adobe. It erodes trust in designers. It erodes trust in production teams. It erodes trust in professional supply chains.

AI in InDesign should raise standards, not flatten them. It should teach proper setup, warn about weak structure, flag risky edits, protect document integrity, and make clear when a task requires professional judgement.

But if it is positioned as magic that helps anyone create production-ready files, then Adobe is not supporting the professional design industry. It is helping blur the line between knowing the software and understanding the work.

Those are not the same thing.

I do not want to repeat what others have already said, but I do want to echo the wider concern here.

For the record, I have no issue with AI being used in InDesign. AI assistance could be genuinely useful in the right places, especially for repetitive work, learning features, checking documents, or helping users get to the right tool faster.

The problem is the implementation.

What is being described here does not seem aligned with how production users actually work day to day. InDesign is not just a blank canvas for experimentation. It is used for live documents, client files, regulated content, archived jobs, accessibility workflows, corporate approvals, publishing, legal material, packaging, and documents that may already have gone through multiple rounds of review.

In that context, AI should sit beside the user as an assistant. It should not silently add content to files, assume approval, or create extra cleanup and verification work after the fact.

That is why the distinction matters. An AI panel that helps when asked is very different from AI-generated material being added by default. One is assistance. The other changes the trust model of the application.

The concern here is not “AI bad”. The concern is that the current approach does not appear to respect real production workflows, document integrity, or the level of control users need over their own files.

Please make generative AI features clearly opt-in, reviewable, and reversible.

Hello, I can’t find the “generative AI” under “Edit” to turn it off.  But, have discovered that InDesign is now auto-populating alt text for all of my images - and the alt text could not be more wrong!  It’s terrible.  Please advise on why this was auto-installed (people should be able to opt in) and if this was tested at all before launching?  Thus far all of the alt text is completely, completely wrong.  Not even close to describing the figures.  This is bad for accessibility, bad for your designers, bad for me when I  think alt text has been taken care of (b/c it doesn’t get flagged in accessibility review) only to discover that there’s been completely inaccurate alt text assigned to our figures.  YUCK YUCK YUCK!

All Adobe needs now is AI prompting agents, and then the full circle will be complete and Adobe can cut out those pesky middleman designers!

😐

Really bad survey too!

Awful. Unwelcome. Take it out. What’s wrong with you?

Useless. Utterly useless. No-one asked for this. Just another way to milk those AI credits, right?

So tiresome. Please start to actually LISTEN to your users.