Say, what?! Everything in your article argues the reverse.

The plan is to take almost all of human jobs and replace them by cheaper AI programs. This isn't just a few million people: if AI reaches its potential then jobs like driver, artist, writer, lawyer, computer programmer will mostly or entirely go, and what exactly will be left?

If one person can do the work of three, as in your example, for-profit corporations are simply going to fire two out of three people and replace them by nothing.

By then, investors will have put trillions into AI. They expect to get their money back, and then a lot more besides. A tiny number of very large companies have and will continue to have for the foreseeable future an absolutely monopoly on the technology: smaller companies will not have access to the billions of dollars in hardware and personnel that are required to tool up to create new AI models, and will entirely be at the mercy of the behemoths.

And so nearly all of these professional drivers and lawyers aren't going to become influencers or prompt engineers: they're simply not going to have jobs at all.

(No, there aren't going to be marvelous jobs created we can't conceive of today. It's not just that this is a cop-out that ignores the economics, it's that we have two hundred years of writers writing through previous industrial booms who well-identified all the jobs that young people were going to take, from factory work to "plastics" (The Graduate).)