You might have missed a key element from the article itself. There are three versions of the same argument: the first by the author, the second by ChatGPT as an argument in support of the statement:

"I’ve been reluctant to try ChatGPT. Today I got over that reluctance. Now I understand why I was reluctant. The value of 90% of my skills just dropped to $0. The leverage for the remaining 10% went up 1000x. I need to recalibrate."

and the third is ChatGPT arguing against that same statement. As present, it's pretty clear which of the three is the most fun to read.

In "Bonus" section he asked ChatGPT to write two different essays based on two slightly different prompts:

"write a 500 word blog post in the style of kent beck expanding on "I’ve been reluctant to try ChatGPT. Today I got over that reluctance. Now I understand why I was reluctant. The value of 90% of my skills just dropped to $0. The leverage for the remaining 10% went up 1000x. I need to recalibrate."

and

"write a 500 word blog post in the style of kent beck disagreeing with "I’ve been reluctant to try ChatGPT. Today I got over that reluctance. Now I understand why I was reluctant. The value of 90% of my skills just dropped to $0. The leverage for the remaining 10% went up 1000x. I need to recalibrate."

That's probably why.

"However, ..."

"In my experience, ..."

"But with the rise of AI technology, ..."

"At first, this ..."

"Rather than seeing the rise of AI as a threat to my career, ..."

ChatGPT's sentence structure is so obvious: "Blah blah blah, blah blah blah."

Looks like it. If a blogger gleefully tells you that they will be replaced but embraces that fact, it is a commercial.

If an academic tells you that ChatGPT is great, probably they have some connections to the AI industry.