I remember the same FOMO that happened with "Google searching." People wrote and sold books about how to search properly on Google. The same with AI will happen: either it will flop, or we'll be able to learn all the needed skills in a few days. I don't worry about it.
I've banked professional success on my superior "Google Searching" ability (compared to my peers) for 20 years. A little but of thinking goes a long way, even when using tools designed to replace thought.
Also, if it does achieve superhuman level intellect what is the point of learning at all. It will have solved physics and math for us already and the model owners will have reaped all the rewards, what good are us meatbags?
what do you mean remember? it didn't go anywhere. I try to understand how to make this useful for my daily programming, and every credible-looking advice begins with "tell LLM to program in style ABC and avoid antipatterns like XYZ", sometimes pages and pages long. It seems like without this prompt sourcery you cannot produce good code using an LLM it will make the same stupid mistakes over and over unless you try to pre-empt them with a carefully engineered upfront prompt. Aside from stupid "influencers" who bullshit that they produced a live commercial app with a one-liner English sentence, it seems that getting anything useful really requires a lot of prompt work, whatever you want to call it.