To users of the software, no it doesn't really. Users only care about results aligned with their priorities.
That said, the act of creation changes the creator, so make sure that you are actually creating! The more you lean on LLMs to generate the concepts/ideas, the less "you" are creating them, and thus the less value to you as a creator the process offers.
Only people actually do care about the process by which the products they use were created. It's our job, as experts who build things, to educate our audiences why and how we build what we build.
Meaningful percentages of people already hate the obvious slop being thrown in their faces. The more they learn of the slop infecting the inside of the digital products they use—and the resulting enshittification—they will seek out worthy alternatives.
Writing structures and clarifies my thoughts, writing code did the same but for software design.
Yes AI types it all faster, but I've lost the clarity and certainty of my understanding. I am finding I'm having to read the code deeply, but reading code isn't as fun or engaging as writing it.
I see a lot of experimenting and tinkering but I don't see a lot of products coming out that have differentiating characteristics, which makes me think people are both doing a lot more and doing a lot less at the same time.
And no, it doesn't matter how the end-product is made unless you care about maintenance/maintaining it.
Code in developed-environments (developed as in country) typically has an aestheticism to it. This served two purposes: beauty and comprehension. Comprehension and extensibility were tightly coupled before LLMs could "elaborate" endlessly. Now, extensibility and comprehensibility are only loosely coupled. But the ratio of people who have truly taken this to its maximum is not large. You still need good ideas and differentiating characteristics to make good applications.
It might seem like it doesn't matter which language or framework you choose, now that the LLMs can endlessly "elaborate." Since comprehensibility is largely optional now. But, if you desire extensibility, making thoughtful design decisions early , such as which language and which framework, can make a noticeable difference down-the-line.
I guess the real question now will be: as your experience stepping inside the machine wanes, will you trust yourself or the cargo cult of procedure you hope will ward off error
> does it truly matter how it was created
To users of the software, no it doesn't really. Users only care about results aligned with their priorities.
That said, the act of creation changes the creator, so make sure that you are actually creating! The more you lean on LLMs to generate the concepts/ideas, the less "you" are creating them, and thus the less value to you as a creator the process offers.
Only people actually do care about the process by which the products they use were created. It's our job, as experts who build things, to educate our audiences why and how we build what we build.
Meaningful percentages of people already hate the obvious slop being thrown in their faces. The more they learn of the slop infecting the inside of the digital products they use—and the resulting enshittification—they will seek out worthy alternatives.
Writing structures and clarifies my thoughts, writing code did the same but for software design.
Yes AI types it all faster, but I've lost the clarity and certainty of my understanding. I am finding I'm having to read the code deeply, but reading code isn't as fun or engaging as writing it.
I see a lot of experimenting and tinkering but I don't see a lot of products coming out that have differentiating characteristics, which makes me think people are both doing a lot more and doing a lot less at the same time.
And no, it doesn't matter how the end-product is made unless you care about maintenance/maintaining it.
Code in developed-environments (developed as in country) typically has an aestheticism to it. This served two purposes: beauty and comprehension. Comprehension and extensibility were tightly coupled before LLMs could "elaborate" endlessly. Now, extensibility and comprehensibility are only loosely coupled. But the ratio of people who have truly taken this to its maximum is not large. You still need good ideas and differentiating characteristics to make good applications.
It might seem like it doesn't matter which language or framework you choose, now that the LLMs can endlessly "elaborate." Since comprehensibility is largely optional now. But, if you desire extensibility, making thoughtful design decisions early , such as which language and which framework, can make a noticeable difference down-the-line.
> If the end result is solid code that I've thoroughly reviewed and trust, does it truly matter how it was created?
It does matter if a coworker throws it away next week and replaces it with a fresh plate of slop, because generating code is just so cheap now.
I guess the real question now will be: as your experience stepping inside the machine wanes, will you trust yourself or the cargo cult of procedure you hope will ward off error