No, the context here is interns. If someone came to me and asked for an internship and showed that to me I'd signal that they need to show me something else that is more impressive, or somehow find a way to explain and motivate that code that convinces me that it is a decent solution.
I'm not sure how you're discerning "style" from "wrong". Would using some esolang be a matter of "style" as long as the asserts on the output pass?
You seem determined to shift the goalposts, so I think we're done here. It's not difficult:
1) Many (some say most) job applicants cannot write a working implementation of FizzBuzz.
2) ChatGPT can write a working implementation of FizzBuzz.
∴ ChatGPT is a better programmer than many (most) job applicants, at least on this specific problem.
QED.
What you are doing part of a long tradition of AI denial. Take (e.g.) chess. First it was "a computer cannot play chess". Then it was "a computer cannot play chess well enough to beat a human being." Then it was "a computer cannot play chess well enough to beat a grandmaster." (you are somewhere between this stage and the previous one) Then it was "a computer cannot play chess well enough to beat the world champion." Then it was "playing chess is not a measure of intelligence." Notice how the goalposts gradually move so that eventually the criterion is "it doesn't count unless the computer is better than the best person in the world." followed by "Ehh... those grapes were probably sour anyway."
For some reason, we don't get so defensive about machinery in other areas of expertise. No one tries to deny that a D11 Caterpillar can shift dirt faster than a human being with a shovel. No one tries to deny that the Webb telescope can see distant galaxies better than any human being's naked eye.
But people freak out when it comes to "intellectual" accomplishments.
Why did you write all these words and still not answer my question?
The context is interns, and I responded from the perspective that someone came to me with that code and asked to be an intern. You seem very convinced that most people that apply for software development jobs can't "write a working implementation of FizzBuzz", but I fail to see the relevance. Why count all the hairdressers and kids that have spent a few weeks on HTML and whatnot that might apply for one software related job and be refused?
It's a rhetorical question, don't waste time on it.
I think it's more interesting to look at the output from the machine as if a person had produced it and offered it in an internship process. That's a good way to at least partially neuter the influence of advertising and so on when we evaluate what you got out of it.
As for the chess part, I'm not so sure computers can play chess. Can they carry the board and pieces to the place where a match will be played? Can they unpack it, push the clock button, move the pieces? When the match takes place on e.g. Lichess, can they put a finger on a screen and move a piece, or do they need some special interface that is incompatible with humans to participate? Do they need a human to help them get to the game and initiate participation, or can they do this on their own, because they previously said to someone that they will or because they feel like it?
You're treating simulacra as ultimately real, and see me as stupid because I still have some contact with the material and don't confuse it with the virtual.
The allegation was that ChatGPT produces answers that are wrong.