You also clearly misread what I said. I didn't say I spent 5 minutes prompting an LLM. I say the ability to get FEEDBACK (a revision) in 5 minutes is amazing. And I stand by that. That allows me to do 20 more revisions and do in a couple of hours what would take two weeks.
You seem to be romanticizing the concept of grunt work – that for something to have value or be of good quality, you have to put in some sort of minimum amount of time on it, and it has to be tedious. It's the same concept that nobody can make a good quality piece of furniture unless they used a hand saw and spoke sweet nothings to the tree before it was cut.
There are ways to do things quicker while preserving quality. I had already left a caveat saying that for the 5% of people that really want to push web design forward, totally, go ahead. But for the rest of us (including those of us who have lived and breathed code and engineering principles for decades), these tools are phenomenal for iterating quickly.
Anyway, the term builder is more about separating the goals from a vanilla "programmer" - even though i've programmed my whole life, it's always been in service of an outcome. And the outcome is almost never "good code for the sake of good code" - it has to serve a real outcome in the real world.
By the way, lots of good designers are also using coding agents now, so you can keep romanticizing grunt work while most of the market moves on.
Perhaps this phrasing is what invited the interpretation you seem to be annoyed with.
There is not much to gain by suggesting everyone is simply bad faith.
I think you like the other person is assuming that 5 minutes = low quality. Instead of thinking "5 mins means you can make 8-10 iterations in an hour" or "5 minutes making the front end look pretty good means I can spend more time on the backend"
There are many good faith ways to interpret this.
No one is assuming the output is strictly low quality from what I can tell. I am personally evaluating the method you provided, which suggested you are championing a sloppy but highly iterative design flow against a seasoned curated suite for defining design. I dont see any reason to assume the other comment was doing anything otherwise.
You made a broad generalized strong claim and were met with the opposing force, which is actually acting from their own understanding of good faith, believe it or not (see how this analysis is void of meaning?).