> one wrote code while the other is used by meatbags to write code.

One is not a "meatbag" while the other is not a "meatbag". And no, outputting something on stdout that happens to function as code is not "writing" it in the sense that we actually care about here. That's conflating the metaphor we use in describing program behaviour with the actual "meatbag" activity.

> why is this example always marched out like it means something?

Because it obviously does.

Almost all ways of creating programs are effectively just using tools to produce code. Compiling, transpiling, interpreting byte code, etc.

Claude didn't "write" anything until a meatbag told it to.