An interior designer's honest review of AIHom

Read an interior designer's AIHom review after a month of client projects, covering concept speed, live edits, limitations, and its place in the workflow.
I've been designing interiors for nine years and I'm naturally skeptical of "AI design" tools — most are toys. AIHom asked me to use it on real client work for a month and write what I actually thought. So here it is, warts and all.
The setup
I run a small residential practice. My usual stack is a modeling tool plus a separate render engine, and a typical concept pitch takes me a few days per direction. For this test I used AIHom on three live projects — a kitchen remodel, a full apartment refresh, and a quick staging job.
What genuinely impressed me
Speed on the early concept
The part that won me over was the front end of a project. I could take a client's brief, generate two or three layout directions with furnished 3D and renders, and walk into the meeting with options instead of a single sketch. That used to be most of a week. It's the difference between presenting and re-presenting.
Editing live in the room
In one review the client wanted the island moved and a warmer palette. I made the change on the spot and re-rendered while we talked. We left with a decision instead of an action item. That alone changes how a meeting feels.
It didn't replace my taste. It removed the hours between having an idea and showing it.
What frustrated me
I want to be fair, so the honest negatives:
Vague briefs give vague rooms. If I was lazy with the prompt, I got a generic result. I had to learn to be specific — which, to be fair, is also true of briefing a junior.
It's not my documentation tool. This is for concept and client buy-in. I still take the approved direction into my own software for technical drawings.
I double-check scale. Most of the time it's right, but on a couple of renders I nudged proportions before sending to a client.
Where it fits
I'd put AIHom firmly in the early, client-facing part of my process: exploring directions, getting sign-off, and producing visuals fast. It's not trying to be a BIM tool, and I'm glad it isn't pretending to be. Used for what it's good at, it bought me back real hours.
Would I keep using it?Yes — for concepts, pitches and staging. For three of those projects it paid for itself in the first week, mostly in meetings that ended in a decision.
The verdict
Skeptic going in, quietly converted coming out — with caveats. It won't design for you, and it shouldn't. But if the slow part of your work is the distance between an idea and something a client can react to, this closes that gap more than anything else I've tried.