There's a sort of quirk in online human behavior where if person A makes a claim and person B makes a claim to argue against it, if a person C makes a claim arguing against person B, it is assumed that person is arguing in favor of A. Judging by the responses, I think that's what is happening here.

In your example the human and ChatGPT are interchangeable. In my example, they are also interchangeable. Your situation yields a "probably not" answer. My situation yields a "probably" answer. These answers contradict each other, despite their identical basis and despite both being correct answers. Therefore, it must be that this human/ChatGPT comparison must not be the locus of the difference between the answers.

I think people ought to take a breath and think about what is actually fundamental about programming. It might be "code"; but then we've sort of just kicked the can down the road, because now we've got to figure out what's fundamental about code and how that means something is or isn't programming. And without this sort of definition, it really isn't meaningful to ask whether this or that thing is programming.

The OS developers could say that about the app developers.

But I havent seen a fully blown app running a business written by chatgpt.

To me, chatgpt is still a next generation wizard, like using a wizard from Lotus Approach.