I think I would prefer the former if I were reviewing a CV. It at least tells me they understood the code well enough to know where to make their minor tweaks. (I've spent hours reading through a repo to know where to insert/comment out a line to suit my needs.) The second tells me nothing.

Its odd you don't apply the same analysis to each. The latter certainly can provide a similar trail indicating knowledge of the use case and necessary parameters to achieve it. And certainly the former doesnt preclude llm interlocking.

Why do you write like that?

It would help if I had a better understanding of what you mean by "that".

I generally write to liberate my consciousness from isolation. When doing so in a public forum I am generally doing so in response to an assertion. When responding to an assertion I am generally attempting to understand the framing which produced the assertion.

I suppose you may also be speaking to the voice which is emergent. I am not very well read, so you may find my style unconventional or sloppy. I generally try not to labor too much in this regard and hope this will develop as I continue to write.

I am receptive to any feedback you have for me.

I'm sorry that other person spoke to you that way. The vast majority of us aren't like that. I appreciate your comments!

I'd quickly trash your application if I see you just vibe coded some bullshit app. Developing is about working smart, and its not smart to ask AI to code stuff that already exists, its in fact wasteful.

Do people really see a CV and read "computer mommy made me a program" and think it's impressive

Unfortunately, it is happening. I remember an old post on HNs, it mentioned that a "prompt engineer for article generating" can find more jobs than a columnist writer. And op just wrote articles by himself but declared that all artices were generated by AI.

A CV for the disappearing job market as you shovel money into a oligarchy.