Until it mishandles a NULL somewhere in a condition on does JOIN instead of a LEFT JOIN and outputs something plausibly-looking that is just plain wrong. To verify it you'll need to do the work that it would take to write it anyway.
I disagree, both because LLMs can be less likely to make those errors than a lot of humans, and because it's easier for me to review and critique its code than to review my own. I can also have a basis for testing, and I can tell it to fix problems in the code rather than having it make up a new answer.
If what I am doing is summarizing data and it will likely have uncertainty as a result, I can include statistics in the specification of what I want.
I have also been impressed from time to time where Claude Code catches a mistake I would have written. For example, I asked it to create a configuration file with some names of my staff to use for a query. It then ran the query and noticed that one name I gave was not in the database, but that there was a similar name, and it recommended changing the config.
I am pessimistic about whether these tools are intelligent or will ever achieve intelligence, but where they are useful, we should use them.
