Rust unsafe has pretty much the same functionality as plain C, with more vervose syntax. So I would expect this model to refuse to give any examples of C code whatsoever.
C is a much simpler language, so it's far easier to reason about the semantics of "unsafe" code.
For example: Rust has destructors (Drop trait) that run automatically when a value goes out of scope or is overwritten. If memory for a struct with a Drop trait is manually allocated (and initialized with garbage) and it is assigned to, the `drop()` method will run for the previous value of it which will cause undefined behavior.
That's just one feature: Rust also has references, tagged unions, virtual method calls (&dyn Trait), move semantics, `Pin<T>`, closures, async/await, and many more, all of which make it harder to reason about safety without the guardrails provided by the language for regular, "safe" code—for which barring a compiler bug it is actually _impossible_ to shoot yourself in the foot like this.
This is actually why it's so incredibly hard to write C++ code that is provably correct: It has even more features that could cause problems than Rust, and is _always_ in "unsafe" mode, with no guardrails.
