Like many other communities, programming has historically had its share of gatekeeping, and it's often easy to forget that "programming" spans a wide range of abilities and skill levels.
So, while GP might be technically correct in some narrow sense, I would be less quick to judge the OP article author. Some years hence, anyone who is not actively building (as opposed to using) one of these LLMs might be dismissed as "not a real programmer" (because by then, that will be the only form of programming in existence).
The article’s author is a professional programmer, I don’t think anyone in their right mind would ever say that that’s not a programmer. I think the comment OP just screwed up and either merely skimmed the article or confused the author with the author’s friend who is not a programmer.
So, while GP might be technically correct in some narrow sense, I would be less quick to judge the OP article author. Some years hence, anyone who is not actively building (as opposed to using) one of these LLMs might be dismissed as "not a real programmer" (because by then, that will be the only form of programming in existence).