The thing about autism is that it is very much a spectrum, not a binary "you have it or you don't" situation. At one point on the spectrum you may have someone who is very classically autistic. At another you may have someone who is very classically "Asperger's" (although that's no longer an official term). But beyond that, you may have someone who in previous years might have been considered a bit eccentric overall, or someone who "had their quirks". Because it's a spectrum, many neurotypical people have some autistic traits to one degree or another (rigidity, sensory sensitivities, unusual attention to detail, etc.)
For the most part, it used to be that to be considered autistic a person had to have relatively impaired functioning in some way. Maybe just in the social realm, but there still had to be significant impairments. Now that people are embracing neurodiversity, the trend has been to include more people who might have been considered "quirky but otherwise successful" in the past under the autism umbrella. So people who wouldn't have been considered autistic 30 years ago may be considered autistic today.
I honestly don't think there's a right or wrong answer when it comes to where we draw the line in the sand between "autistic" and "neurotypical with a few traits associated with autism". To my mind it's a societal construct, wherever we say the line is at a given point in time, that's where it is in terms of semantics.