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.
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.
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.
