If the junk doesn't work right from the beginning, yes. The problem is that sometimes the junk might look like it works at first, and then later you find out that it doesn't, and you ended up having to make urgent fixes on a Friday night.
> And in that process I've found is where the real magic happens
It might be good way to learn if there's someone who's supervising the process, so they _know_ that the code is incorrect, and tells you to figure out what's wrong and how to fixes.
If you are shipping this stuff yourself, this sounds like a way of deploying giant foot-guns into production.
I still think it's a better to learn if you try to understand the code from the beginning (in the same way that a person should try to understand code they read from tutorials and stackoverflow), rather than delaying the learning until something doesn't work. This is like trying to make yourself do reinforcement learning on the outputs of an LLM, which sounds really inefficient to me.
> And in that process I've found is where the real magic happens
It might be good way to learn if there's someone who's supervising the process, so they _know_ that the code is incorrect, and tells you to figure out what's wrong and how to fixes.
If you are shipping this stuff yourself, this sounds like a way of deploying giant foot-guns into production.
I still think it's a better to learn if you try to understand the code from the beginning (in the same way that a person should try to understand code they read from tutorials and stackoverflow), rather than delaying the learning until something doesn't work. This is like trying to make yourself do reinforcement learning on the outputs of an LLM, which sounds really inefficient to me.