Software... a lot of software is basically the same thing (database, api, frontend), the only difference is what data and business rules. But the act of writing code isn't very different. It's the what code to write where software engineers come in.
I.e. in order to get to the point where you didn't have to manually touch this thing, you likely did have to learn deeply about its underlying concepts by manually doing things.
Operating machines doesn't always have the same phenomenon. E.g. experience with a hand-powered drill is unnecessary to use an electric drill.
What's left is a lot of very different software which have very few things in common.
The "only" difference? Wow.
To put it another way: a generalisation of OP's question is "is it worth spending a lot of effort learning to do X manually, when a machine can do a lower-quality version of X massively faster and cheaper than I can ever do?" In the article, X = coding. I wanted to check if the arguments given for "yes, and" hold for different values of X and the first that came to my mind was rugs; probably unfortunate that I know nothing of that topic...
I don't think that the answers for one value of X always apply completely to other values of X (i.e. whatever happened to hand-woven rugs might well be very different than what happens with coding) but I found it an interesting thought experiment, because I can fully see a master artisan of any type of X giving a very close version of the article's arguments. Maybe finding when they were eventually right and when they were not for past scenarios can teach me something now. Maybe...