I'm not sure how you got that impression from this article. We don't learn very much about Amber, but nothing in there seems to suggest that she's unable or unwilling to work as hard as anybody else to achieve her dreams, merely that school doesn't offer any options which are appealing to her. I think it's very disingenuous to suggest that any paths which are not supported in current schools are "lazy and unmotivated".

It's a story so common as to be a trope in media for the school dropout to end up going on to great things once they find an avenue for their enthusiasm, and the article hints that Amber may be finding something like that in her culinary work.

How, then, is this meaningfully different from typically well-recieved stories about teenagers who don't get on with school but are enthusiastic engineers or programmers? The specific path is different, but the story is the same. Why should one be interpreted as "potentially the next Bill Gates" and the other as "lazy unmotivated"?