You seem to be mistaking set and members here. The piece's critique is against the set (LLM Evangelists), not against specific members of the set (the ones you mentioned). One can agree with the point of the piece while still acknowledging there are good programmers who are also LLM evangelists.

You are right, I went a bit too quickly so let me expand a bit my chain of thoughts.

The article is against the set of LLM evangelists who are hostile towards the skeptics.

I 100% agree with the part that basically says fuck you to them.

However, explaining the hostile part with there being the feeling of insecurity (which is plausible but would need evidence) is not fully convincing and it seems dangerous to accept this conclusion and stop looking for the actual reasons this quickly.

And the fact that there are actually good programmers persuaded that LLMs help them weakens the "insecurity" argument quite a bit, at least as the only explanation.

As someone currently pretty much hostile to LLMs, I'm quite interested in what's currently at play but I'm suspicious of claims that initially feel good but are not strongly backed.

Like, if these hostile people were actually shills, we would want to know this and not have closed the eyes too early because of some explanation that felt good, right? Or any actual reason.

Look into the Motte-and-bailey fallacy. That set seriously doesn't exist. Even the people on youtube doing "vibe coding" benchmarks mostly say it's crap. (Well they probably exist on twitter/linkedin.)

This article just functions as flamebait for people who use LLMs to implement whole features to argue the semantics of "vibe coding". All while everyone is ignoring the writing on the wall. That we will soon have boxes going through billions of tokens every second. At that point slopcoding WILL be productive, but only if you build up the skill to differentiate yourself from the top 10% of prompters.