Yeh but I also mean outside of software engineering. Within the gamut of 'being a programmer' it seems fair to bleed into adjacent areas without too much cheek. We've all done it; it's part of the learning curve. But I was talking more about people in other knowledge work who have to come up with a lot of prose-like material about {insert thing}. Marketing, consultants, PMs, or even domain-specific analysts, .. ya know, the types of office jobs where people basically write emails, attend meetings, discuss reports, and produce mostly text-or-data artefacts all day long.

I think this is fine as long as the success criteria are strict enough that they are forced to learn something in the end.

Any significant testing will inevitably create that situation. The LLM won't have enough context to handle the more precise business requirements. The dev will have to read the code carefully and make their changes by hand. Additional rounds of testing may cause thrashing between regressed states until something clicks for the developer. That lightbulb going off is called "learning" and they are human after all!

That sounds like fraud. You claimed you have knowledge of the job you got hired for, but you don't actually have.

If the company want's hire someone who doesn't have a clue and only uses SO, that's of course fine, but I doubt, that this is the case.