I've had that experience and I've started testing different prompts and inputs.

I find it funny about meeting requirements when you give them, and making safe choices when you don't give direction. So if you're going to rate the output aesthetics and UX/content, but you don't prompt especially much around the aesthetics, you're only getting the safe assumed defaults. It's good at making bootstrap/tailwind clone designs unless you work that angle. For simple web pages, I've started making this the only focus for initial iteration.

Most applications don't need unconventional creativity though.

Same, you can instruct it specifically to look non-standard and give it examples of website styles I want. After some wrangling it feels a bit more creative but takes prompting.

I use claude design too. It has been suggested to me by some very respected and experienced designers which now prototype almost exclusively in claude and then when happy refine in figma.

By the way, you can always tune your prompts to not be generic, if you ask for generic UIs without detailed styling prompts you will get generic designs.

I’ve done a few different things, some different presentations, web mockups etc. They all look more or less identical out of the box, and in every single case of a presentation, Claude Design has zero concept of layout boundaries, happily making slides that expand 200% or more out of the visible viewport (I have a lot of content and it just can’t figure out nice ways of presenting it).

There’s still value in it for me, I get decent enough output to convey my intent and I sometimes manually tweak the HTML.

Defining fonts is a good way to at least not get the same typography as everyone else.

Sort of, I've given it examples of unconventional UI's and then had it sort of create a mashup of them and it's been decent. But I feel like that's cheating.