I don't understand the argument here. People falsely claim that LLM-generated code is unverifiable because LLMs are stochastic (you didn't claim that, but others on HN have); that argument is risible because code is code and you can just read it and reject it if you're not certain what it does. Here, though, we're claiming that a generated prompt is so unverifiable that it qualifies as "spell-casting".
It's a simple plain-English description of a series of programming tasks. If you can't evaluate this, you can't program.
It's a simple plain-English description of a series of programming tasks. If you can't evaluate this, you can't program.