This kind of thinking is actually a big reason why execs are being misinformed into overestimating LLM abilities.
LLM coding agents alone are not good enough to replace any single developer. They only make a developer x% faster. That dev who is now x% faster may then allow you to lay off another dev. That is a subtle yet critical difference.
To adress your point, let's try another one analogy. Imagine secreterial assistants, discussing their risk of been replaced by computers in the 80s. They would think: someone still need to type those letters, sit next to that phone and make those appointments, I am safe. Computers won't replace me.
It is not that AI will do all of your tasks and replace you. It is that your role as a specialist in software development won't be necessary most of the time (someone will do that, and that person won't call themselves a programmer).
I tend to find that the volume of automation predictions inversely correlates to how real they are.
When capitalists actually have the automation tech they dont shout about it they just do it quietly and collect the profits.
When, say, Bezos is worried about his unionizing workforce and wants to intimidate - that's when the hot takes and splashy media articles about billions invested in automation "coming for yer jerb" you read about get published.
But you can understand why all the 1700 and below chess players say it is good and it is making them better using it for eval?
Don't worry, AI will replace you one day, you are just smarter than most of us so you don't see it yet.