LLMs can explain the process, and you can build projects with LLMs explaining the process.

LLMs can attempt to explain the code, but it can't explain people's thought process and that's the interesting part.

I want to hear about the reverse engineering, how you thought the code through. LLMs are boring.

They can, if you write down your thought process, which is probably what you should do when you are using an LLM to create a product, but what do I know.

> They can, if you write down your thought process

Just write a blogpost at that point.

You do not have to be as accurate or that specific, you do not have to worry about the way you word or organize things, the LLM can figure it out, as opposed to a blog post.

So "To some people the process leading to a finished project is the most interesting thing about posts like these." is bullshit, that is said by someone who has never used LLM properly. You can achieve it with LLMs. You definitely can, I know, I did, accurately (I double checked).

That is not true

How come? You had different experiences? Which LLMs, what prompts? Give me all the details that supports your claim that it is not true. My experiences completely differ from yours, so the way I use it, it is very much true.

That said, it is probably pointless to argue with full-blown AI-skeptics.

People had lots of great and productive-enhancing experiences with LLMs, you did not, great, that does not reflect the tool, it reflects your way of using the tool.

I will just throw it out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44163063 (My AI skeptic friends are all nuts)

LLM output is simply not interesting

I did not say that you should copy paste its output verbatim. I thought this was obvious.

It's not about explaining the process but experiencing it.

Well, they can experience it if they wish to. Sadly most vibe-coders do not.