> Rather, most of it holds true most of the time. But not enough.

I see it be wrong about things all day every day. And yet, IME it's correct enough for it to be controllable. It doesn't have to hold up all of the time, it just has to respond to corrections when they're issued in a loop so that it converges to a correct solution. And it does, despite the mistakes.

In one of my other posts in this thread I detail some of the the ways it's confounded me, but those issues have caused me to harden validation mechanisms rather than say "this thing makes mistakes so I can't use it to write software".

> I'm talking more of a higher level than this - more of coding/design patterns that are common for the team.

Do you have a concrete example?