A lot of people observe that their thoughts get better when they do the work to write them out. It's not just a straightforward encoding process (as maybe a software engineer would conceive of it).
E.g. I iterate and see the architecture or the system work out, or I get other ideas because of something I don't like, etc.
This is a poor argument. The trial and error is the LLMs trial and error of your intention (ironically driven by you), not your trial and error.
It's like saying "It wouldn't matter if I instructed an LLM to solve my trigonometry problem or if I wrote the the solution myself; either way I'm learning trig".
> E.g. I iterate and see the architecture or the system work out, or I get other ideas because of something I don't like, etc.
What exactly are you needed for in this scenario, other than saying "make me $PRODUCT"? The LLm is going to be a lot better at architecture than you are. Your role is limited to A/B testing the result for human use.