There is a comment higher up in this thread [1] about how "ChatGPT 4-o can spot the error immediately" which I believe exemplifies the point the parent is making, namely, that any criticism of ChatGPT is met with "that's only because you didn't use enough of it", aka the "more cowbell" defense.

If HN is to be believed you should use ChatGPT to generate your data insertion code, to port it to a different language, and to ask for which error it made when you asked before. What to do if an error slips through in this version is always an exercise left for the reader.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40630906

i can see missing this during testing since it relies on doing the flow twice. though i have a hard time imagining a team of people not figuring this out in less than 5 days

Their take-away is that when people tell them ChatGPT produces excellent code you have a nice example to the contrary. The business had many failures, not the least of which is that `default = ... foo() ...` should have jumped out in a cursory glance at the code as needing further inspection, almost no matter which language the developers in question are most comfortable with.

My takeaway is fault lies with s/he who trusted ChatGPT.