It's a hook to get attention, that's all. Have a title that sounds surprising and counterintuitive, then explain how you really meant something related but different. Would this have been submitted to HN if it argued "Programmers should automate tasks and learn new things" without the pretense? Probably not. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. See also "worse is better", among others.

In the case of this article, though, I have to say that Larry Wall has already done it better with the "three virtues of a programmer":

Laziness: The quality that makes you go to great effort to reduce overall energy expenditure. It makes you write labor-saving programs that other people will find useful, and document what you wrote so you don't have to answer so many questions about it. Hence, the first great virtue of a programmer.

Impatience: The anger you feel when the computer is being lazy. This makes you write programs that don't just react to your needs, but actually anticipate them. Or at least that pretend to. Hence, the second great virtue of a programmer.

Hubris: Excessive pride, the sort of thing Zeus zaps you for. Also the quality that makes you write (and maintain) programs that other people won't want to say bad things about. Hence, the third great virtue of a programmer.

The author seems to be trying to pass off "programmers are lazy" as his own, unless he's really unaware of that meme. But I could write these "insightful" little counterfactuals all day:

Good classical composers are tone-deaf and forgetful, because they use dissonance and repeat things with variation.

Good marathon runners are slow.

Good comic artists draw poorly.

Etc etc.