They allege these 3 questions aren't answered in the article and then use that as a jumping off point to further allege that using LLMs have damaged the writer's mind, but the article does address each one of their questions and they would've noticed that if their engagement hadn't been skin deep.

So their comment is really a vehicle for them to deliver an insult and doesn't represent significant engagement with the material or a thoughtful digression that could foster curious conversation.

Note that that doesn't mean it's a good article or that Ralph is a good idea.