You (and everyone else) is missing the point of my post. (I admit to having thrown it poorly.) Forget the QC part; It confidently described an algorithm to square a number, which literally any beginning CS student could do, that didn’t even come close.

I will admit to using it all the time for simple programming tasks, and it occasionally does them correctly. Often it comes close enough that I can fix them. (Interestingly in most of these cases I can’t talk it into fixing itself. It kinda gets into wrong-approach ruts), and sometimes it’s horribly wrong (like here).

I find the horribly wrong cases funny.

99.999% of humans who haven't seen the data.

If you had just spent 90 days observing the equivalent of millions of books what are the odds you could recall even one thing from each of them.

Zero.