

How is it not correct if the code successfully does the very thing that was prompted?
F.ex. in my company we don’t have any real programmers but have built handful of useful tools (approx. 400-1600 LOC, mainly Python) to do some data analysis, regex stuff to cleanup some output files, index some files and analyze/check their contents for certain mistakes, dashboards to display certain data, etc.
Of course the apps may not have been perfect after the very first prompt, or even compiled, but after iterating an error or two, and explaining an edge case or two, they’ve started to perform flawlessly, saving tons of work hours per week. So how is this not useful? If the code creates results that are correct, doesn’t that make the app itself technically ”correct” too, albeit likely not nearly as optimized as equivalent human code would be.
I disagree on the junk part: I see it so that if the output of the program are working, the logic must be flawless (just maybe not optimized when it comes to efficiency). Of course in our case the inputs are highly structured and it is easy for humans to spot errors in the output files so this ”iterate until outputs are perfect” has worked great, and yield huge savings in workhours. In our case none of the tools are exposed outside so in very worst case user may just crash the app.
But yeah I agree building any public frontend or anything business critical is likely the way to doom.