They explicitly state a position they take for themself, whereas you make an implicit value judgement of all practitioners who feel similarly. This could be read in a way as an assumption that everyone else should be as miserable as you.

It is understood which forms of AI are at play here when the discussion revolves around the massive companies, capital investments, datacenters PR campaigns, and mandates required to create and sustain them and their usage.

When Tesla FSD was in the zeitgeist, theft never entered the discussion, because it was clear that form of AI was not predicated upon theft.

Why would AI providers benefit from anti-AI propaganda?

I don't get it. Writing code yourself is the best way to control how the code functions and is designed. If LLMs were to disappear tomorrow, how would one lose control over the degree and specificity of the code produced that one could not simply compensate for with a bit more time and skill investment up front?

The author only hints at the notion that developers who do not use LLMs are like painters upon the advent of photography, but does not go on to suggest who these developers analogous to painters might be today, nor to whom their works might be valued.

If we're going to torture visual media into being a good analogy for LLM versus hand coding, I think writing code oneself is more like having a inkjet printer that one controls manually. You get a great deal of explicit control and theoretically unlimited expressiveness but at the cost of a greater time investment. Comparatively, painting might not give you that same degree of precision. Photography surrenders that control but puts a great significance on capturing fleeting moments in time.

They need the hype to pay off way more than we do. So many of us who still write code directly stand to lose nothing of our capabilities if the marketing claims cannot hold water.