I did read it, but the whole premise is flawed due to an apparently incomplete understanding of how LLMs work. Including code samples in your prompt won't have the effect you think it will.

LLMs are trained to produce results that are statistically likely to be syntactically well-formed according to assumptions made about how "language" works. So when you provide code samples, the model incorporates those into the response. But it doesn't have any actually comprehension of what's going on in those code samples, or what any code "means"; it's all just pushing syntax around. So what happens is you end up with responses that are more likely to look like what you want, but there's no guarantee or even necessarily a correlation that the tuned responses will actually produce meaningfully good code. This increases the odds of a bug slipping by because, at a glance, it looked correct.

Until LLMs can generate code with proofs of semantic meaning, I don't think it's a good idea to trust them. You're welcome to do as you please, of course, but I would never use them for anything I work on.