Feels like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

How so?

The property Scotsman is existing a priori and then a causality to behaviour is assumed. But here the term is defined by behaviour.

There's multiple ways to program using LLMs, so using different words for different styles is a useful distinction.

Of course, you absolutely can build a No True Scotsman argument on top of that distinction, but I don't think that's what GP was doing.

By that logic every appeal to the truth is a No True Scotsman fallacy.