It's false that the post was generated by GPT-3. The author admitted to writing the title and editing the intro, and that's already all that most people read. He also described the article body this way: "as unedited as possible"—in other words, edited. It's false that (as he originally claimed) only one commenter called the post as GPT-3, and false that (as he now claims—since the article says it and who else would have come up with that) all such comments were downvoted.
All that is just what he publicly admitted. How much of the rest is also fake? People who try to game HN like this, including with bogus accounts and fake votes, are not known for scruples. It seems that, having got busted in dishonest attempts to get attention on HN, he decided to get attention from journalists instead, and found one who didn't bother to check the other side of the story.
The following is completely nonsensical, and occurs very early in the article, right after the general introduction:
"Over-Thinking (OT) is the act of trying to come up with ideas that have already been thought through by someone else. OT usually results in ideas that are impractical, impossible, or even stupid."
The only reason to keep reading after this is just to see what other bullshit has been heaped on, like not being able to take your eyes away from a train wreck.
I didn't visit the story when it appeared (regardless of its upvotes) because the very title smelled of self-helpy twaddle. I would for sure have flagged it.
That behavior may be a clue as to what happened. The submission title was crafted in such a way as to deter "nonsense-averse" users from clicking on it, and that may have helped it evade flagging. If a submission evades flags, the only other points it can get are upvotes.