Correct me if I'm wrong, but autistic behavior is a fairly diverse group of behaviors, some of which are harmless (idiosyncratic mannerisms, for the most part), some of which are "objectively" problematic (difficulty socializing with neurotypical people is strictly worse than having an easy time of it), and some of which are "objectively" beneficial (greater facility socializing with other autistic people, for instance, which I will, for the sake of argument, generalize from Vector's statement).
It seems to me that trying to classify the entire category as good or bad is kind of simplistic, and it's really important to approach each individual to ascertain to what extent the different behaviors are manifest in that person, because hey, maybe for one person they aren't having any trouble at all and maybe somebody else feels that their life is being ruined by it. It's important to base that assessment, too, on what the person in question finds desirable. It's a bit obnoxious to decide that it's vitally important to improve a person's ability to communicate with neurotypical people if this person is okay with the situation.
I dunno. Saying autism is bad seems to me kind of like saying bacteria are bad. I mean, you're only thinking of the unpleasant parts of the category, but you're ignoring the large swathes that don't have a meaningful impact on your life and the ones that are propping up chunks of your life. And even that's not a fair division, because context can move one particular thing out of the good category into the bad, or vice versa.
EDIT: The above analogy is now even more apt. Well how bout that. I guess it's not perfect, though, what with bacteria being objects that can be segregated from one another without necessarily destroying the whole, but let's assume for the sake of argument that we live in a world with wide-spectrum antibiotics (genocide in this case) and nothing else.