I also appreciate where you're coming from and it's likely we wont agree, due to a difference in fundamental values (neither being better imo, just different), but i value the discourse and world view broadening that conversations like this offer no less. So let me preface this with the fact i value your input and think your point is not just valid, but true if i allow myself to evaluate all this under a different value system.

that being said, even if i shift my values in this way, one problem remains - the nature of creativity.

so, under this value system tool use is irrelevant, if it makes creativity easier cool, doesnt diminish it non.

so lets evaluate this purely on a novelty / creativity angle.

marketing wise: tactic / style taken from a youtuber they reference in their twitter account

product: idea contributes jothing novel to a saturated space of ai learning tolls

tool use: tools used, and the way they were used, is about as basic as it gets

insight: no real novel or interesting insights into tool use, or the problem being solved

wholisitc interpretation: all together, what appears novel in all this, is applying a particular marketing strategty to hn, one that is usually aimed at children. This raises a few interesting questions about shifting demogrpahics on hn among other things, but this post is interesting in a meta way, not a direct way.

as an example, writing text like this, in a digital way, is not special anymore, by anyones reakoning - and yet if you apply this skill creatively, be it a story or poetry or solving a novel problem etc. Then that comment still has creative merit, even if the skills underlying it are no longer noteworthy. The same is true here, the skills underlying what was done are no longer noteworthy, and so we must evaluate on content alone. The content is derivative. So it stands on nothing.