I really can't answer anything regarding the speed of transformation atm, I just thought about your question for a minute or two. But speaking in general form for when we get there, as we approach trivialization of intellectual tasks (and I say trivialization to be on the same page as you, not to be confused with full automation) there are common points of view about the future:

1. That's a non-issue: the argument of most people who hold a bachelor of Economics degree (and never studied economics past undergrad level).

The argument suggests that every technological revolution which makes older jobs disappear tend to also make new jobs never before considered to pop into existence. Not every tech leap does this but some tech leaps are so profound that they make up for a lot more new jobs than they took away.

In this argument developers need not fear, maybe they won't be doing the same things they are doing today but they will have financial stability pursuing other jobs. As you can see, the first flaw of this argument jumps in front of you when it disregards people who are caught in the transition period, and only cares about people who get an education and a job after the transition is done.

2. Universal Basic Income: self explanatory, this will tell you you don't have to worry about being unemployable, you will get something from the government until you figure something else out.

This connects with the last problem with the first argument and both are the same argument in the heads of some people. In the heads of others, maybe really a good amount of people won't be able to transition and we may end up having to support a good chunck of people just on UBI alone for the long term.

As you can see UBI also doesn't answer your question about getting a degree today, but it would make it less frightening to be wrong.

3. The Keynesian argument: Automation will inevitably outpace the rate of new job creation in general areas of the economy. The solution: everyone works less time and still get livable wages, so that more people can work.

In this argument your developers would be working half time so that more people can be employed. (Not going into details but your average company shareholder and C-suite would probably not like this for more reasons than just smaller profit margins).

4. Steady-state economics: similar to the argument above but we couple that with stopping continuous production expansion (in the aggregate economy). As you work less hours, more people can work. Everyone works less but nobody is allowed to be filthy-rich (where is the limit? Good question). If there is capital concentration then expansion would be needed again.

5. Degrowth: similar to the above but we kill specific industries (think private jets, yachts, fast food, fast fashion, probably a lot of tech too).

Why kill "superficial" industries? To avoid hyper Inflation in the prices of fundamental products and services, such as foods sold at the supermarket, durable clothing (non-luxury), housing construction, etc, etc. Because reducing the amount of worked hours but not reducing wages (or reducing less than 1:1 ratio) may inflate all prices, so we kill superficial industries in order to allocate resources and people in more essential work, controlling Inflation via supply (see the last nobel prize in economics iirc).

In this scenario your average developer who works for tech giant cartels will not have that kind of work ever again. More modest wages in smaller companies and less working hours. But also constrained by some limit in wealth accumulation.

I was about to mention the socialist arguments but I don't feel like getting into the shit show that may follow in the comments. But market socialism may be an answer (Steady-State Economics except all companies are cooperatives [except for monopolies, which are owned by the government]). Why cooperatives? Because there is a conflict of interest in having people work less hours when companies are private: managers and shareholders have all the incentive in the world to raise the amount of working hours if they are allowed to.

7. Business as usual: The actual path we are heading. This is the path where we believe argument one is right and if it isn't we just allow huge portions of the population to fall into unemployment until revolts begin and we enter a fascist state. But to be clear, not only do we believe argument one is right, we also believe that the transition stage for people who are right now getting an education and/or working in jobs soon to be trivialized will be smooth asf. New jobs will pop up and most professionals will be able to transition smoothly without a care in the world.