It comes close. The author doesn't want to learn the math and study the thing. Why? By implication, because they're over 35 and don't want to learn new stuff anymore.
These are the low level operations. From a higher level mathematical standpoint? I can prove to you analytically how a SGD optimizer on a convex surface will converge to the global minimum at an exponential rate, starting from either set theory or dependent type theory and the construction of real numbers from sets of rational numbers.
None of these tell me how and why LLM works.
However, even though I don't program, nothing in his list prior to AI is beyond me yet, if I wanted to learn it. I am happy being a 25 years Linux power user who climbed the Emacs learning curve to use org-mode and then gradually added email,rss, irc, web, and gopher modalities to it.
It seems you are both missing the point of article, and jumping on a stereotype.
Said point being: while the author clearly does like learning new stuff, and rolling up his sleeves to deal with all the fiddly bits -- AI is categorically different. In that the complexity is simply off the page compared to most (choosing my words carefully) technologies one is used to geeking out on. And that even experts in the field admit they don't really understand it.
(That, and the sheer resources required to do something interesting, the perpetual lock-in with the sociopathic entities that provide said resources, etc).