I think you're being pedantic to the point of losing all credibility. And you're gatekeeping in the worst possible way.

Your argument that using an LLM means you didn't "make" a thing could just as easily be used to say that if you used a framework or a library, you also didn't "make" a thing, because you didn't write all the code yourself and you didn't understand everything.

Would you say the authors of YT-DLP didn't "make" anything because they are a wrapper over FFMPEG and CURL?

If you produce something useful (even just to yourself), you "made" a thing.. It has a purpose, and it's useful. Who cares how you made it or how long it took?

For example I've made plenty of bash scripts over the years that were effectively thin wrappers that combined other tools, but they did something novel and useful that saved me tons of time, and I've shared those as gists or in other ways.

Some of these scripts took me mere minutes to make. I didn't use an LLM to make them, but the "heavy lifting" definitely wasn't in my script. No one ever showed up to berate me and try to tell me that I didn't actually produce anything useful in any of these cases.

So this "in the past" that you imagine where people were held to some bullshit standard for what is accepted as "making" a thing?

That past doesn't really exist, and if does where you are, it sucks.

People do care - lots of people do. Maybe you don’t, and maybe the argument the other poster made wasn’t fair, but you make just as spurious claims when you say „who cares how you made it or how long it took?”