If you are really worried about AI's impact on your field of work - and that might be warranted - here's a place that has some interesting ressources to "counter" it or help block out a lot of the noise from both the hyper-enthusiasts and the doomsayers who both think all jobs with disappear and just disagree on whether that's a good or a bad thing :
https://80000hours.org/agi/guide/skills-ai-makes-valuable/
Short of it is, some skills are not really touched negatively by AI and likely won't be, or are on the contrary becoming more valuable because of it :
-Fine motor skills and niche physical skills
This is Moravec's house and we're all just squatting in it. Robotics are lagging behind, adaptative robotics in particular, and there is no great breakthrough that seem just a few steps away to solve this. Some jobs that were considered dead and buried have now become viable again if not profitable because they shrunk a lot while machines are not able to provide viable replacements. Some examples that can overlap with programming would be : electronics repair, EV maintenance
-Leadership and decisionmaking
The most "beyond the pale" techbros love to tell us that we'll soon let the robots make all the important decisions for us but considering how bad these are at dealing with human behaviors as well as the nature of politics, it's pretty likely that's not actually going to happen anytime soon. As a result, competent decisionmakers and managers are not going to lose that much value overall. Infact it's very likely the people who can overlap their leadership skills with skills niche to their industries will become in demand and that can be something for you to look into. Looking at the terrible effect bean-counters and clueless management has had in tech and software companies over the last 20 years is all you need to know. Intel is a great example, so is Yahoo : both used to have huge positions as market leaders or big players at least, then direction and management was gradually handed to people with corporate experience but no familiarity with the products and services and as such both missed every single big change in their respective industry. And I don't think I need to even say anything about how bad the disconnect between the craft, product and management/executive has been in the gaming industry. Someone who can be both a programmer/developer and a team or project leader, manager or executive is going to be valuable on the job market thanks to the overlap of skills. We've seen the result of transplanted managers or technicians forced into leadership and it's not been great.
-Institutions
Because of their nature as well as checks and balances present in the public sector, institutions aren't too likely to automatize through AI. Government either won't be willing to completely play ball with private actors or won't be able to for budgetary reasons. I'm sure there's going to be some implementations in the name of efficiency and cutting "bullshit jobs" for the sake of cutting public spending, but government contracts are often renegociated on a regular basis and offers are open for the sake of preventing government-monopolies. Sure, the social security services would probably love to have one big AI doing everything but not only isn't that possible on a technical level, but it's not even legal to have a single entity providing all services AND the security guys won't let one external actor deal with all the sensitive data forever. Chances are, "hidden companies" will have a bunch of positions that just can't be replaced because govt won't allow big tech actors to be the ones making their structural software. "hidden companies" as in the obscure ones nobody knows of because they do stuff like specialized database management tools, that sort of stuff.
