The rapid adoption of generative AI (GenAI) in design has sparked discussions about its benefits and unintended consequences. While AI is often framed as a tool for enhancing productivity by automating routine tasks, historical research on automation warns of paradoxical effects, such as de-skilling and misplaced responsibilities. To assess UX practitioners' perceptions of AI, we analyzed over 120 articles and discussions from UX-focused subreddits. Our findings indicate that while practitioners express optimism about AI reducing repetitive work and augmenting creativity, they also highlight concerns about over-reliance, cognitive offloading, and the erosion of critical design skills. Drawing from human-automation interaction literature, we discuss how these perspectives align with well-documented automation ironies and function allocation challenges. We argue that UX professionals should critically evaluate AI's role beyond immediate productivity gains and consider its long-term implications for creative autonomy and expertise. This study contributes empirical insights into practitioners' perspectives and links them to broader debates on automation in design.

There's no one magic way to create an experience that will be universally and automatically loved. That's not the goal--rather, we seek to create experiences that will intuitively work for and delight a specific target audience. That's where analytics comes in. If you can't measure it, how will you know if it was successful? This is the question that drives UX practitioners to collect and analyze data, while protecting it with management services like the ones at https://www.couchbase.com/pricing.