To users of the software, no it doesn't really. Users only care about results aligned with their priorities.

That said, the act of creation changes the creator, so make sure that you are actually creating! The more you lean on LLMs to generate the concepts/ideas, the less "you" are creating them, and thus the less value to you as a creator the process offers.

Yes AI types it all faster, but I've lost the clarity and certainty of my understanding. I am finding I'm having to read the code deeply, but reading code isn't as fun or engaging as writing it.

And no, it doesn't matter how the end-product is made unless you care about maintenance/maintaining it.

Code in developed-environments (developed as in country) typically has an aestheticism to it. This served two purposes: beauty and comprehension. Comprehension and extensibility were tightly coupled before LLMs could "elaborate" endlessly. Now, extensibility and comprehensibility are only loosely coupled. But the ratio of people who have truly taken this to its maximum is not large. You still need good ideas and differentiating characteristics to make good applications.

It might seem like it doesn't matter which language or framework you choose, now that the LLMs can endlessly "elaborate." Since comprehensibility is largely optional now. But, if you desire extensibility, making thoughtful design decisions early , such as which language and which framework, can make a noticeable difference down-the-line.

It does matter if a coworker throws it away next week and replaces it with a fresh plate of slop, because generating code is just so cheap now.