Maybe that's how it'll end up but it's important to understand that trillions haven't been invested in AI as just another skill, but as the "skill killer". If we do settle on it being just another skill, you shouldn't expect it'll be receiving nearly as much investment.

I'm somewhat of an AI skeptic so obviously I don't believe this, but even in the best case scenario that being skilled in AI lets you be skilled in any other field, thats still just an abstraction. If I'm hired as a programmer, I doubt my employer much cares if I can also do plumbing.

Perhaps your argument is "hire me and I can do your programming, accounting and analytics at the same time", but that somewhat dilutes the skill argument, since one human can only do so many things skillfully at once, and that'd just reveal yourself as really just a relatively unskilled middleman.

Even in this best case scenario though, I can't imagine an "AI practitioner" has an easy time getting hired. If I'm a Django expert, it'll be much easier for me to get hired by non-programmers as python programmers as I speak a language they don't, whereas AI uses natural language, so everyone already does speak your skills language. Even if it really does take skill, theres no denying it'll be harder to convince people that already speak the language of that.