It's important to base life decisions on very real technological change. We don't know what the change will be, but it's coming. At the very least, that suggests more diverse skills.
We're all usually (but not always) better off, with more productivity, eventually, but in the meantime, jobs do disappear. Robotics did not fully displace machinists and factory workers, but single-skilled people in Detroit did not do well. The loom, the steam engine... all of them displaced often highly-trained often low-skilled artisans.
If AI reaches this level socioeconomic impact is going to be so immense, that choosing what subject you study will have no impact on your outcome - no matter what it is - so it's a pointless consideration.
That's just about the silliest thing I've read in a long time.
We've had changes before, the most recent one being the rise of computers and then the internet, and before that, manufacturing automation. In all cases, some people were better prepared for change, and some less so.
The general consensus is that diverse skills and foundational skills (e.g. math, communication) best prepare people for transitions, relative to specialized skills (e.g. one technology). In addition, many careers are likely to be less impacted, such as plumbing.
If we reach superhuman AGI the best preparation you can make is weapons, combat training and maybe look to build/join a militia to do a quick takeover while it's still ramping up. Society is built on cooperation outperforming violence - there's 0 chance that holds past real AGI - game theory works very different when we aren't living in an iterated prisoners dilemma.
We're all usually (but not always) better off, with more productivity, eventually, but in the meantime, jobs do disappear. Robotics did not fully displace machinists and factory workers, but single-skilled people in Detroit did not do well. The loom, the steam engine... all of them displaced often highly-trained often low-skilled artisans.