I don't quite agree.

SQL queries are one area where correctness matters a lot, because downstream applications rely on them to be correct. If you get a query wrong, especially in an ETL process, you can generate a lots of garbage data for a very long time (I'm speaking from lived experience). It might take a long time to correct (via backfill) and sometimes the original data might no longer be available.

I use LLMs to generate ideas for writing complex SQL, but I always need to understand the query 100% first before I deploy. Mistakes are costly, and sometimes irreversible. I need to trust but verify, which requires deep SQL knowledge.

To write correct SQL, you not only have to know the syntax, but also the schema (easily provided to an LLM) and the expected data values (you can provide a sampling to an LLM which helps, but domain knowledge helps even more). There are lots of surprising things in data that only reveal themselves via visual inspection. (though I think with MCO, an LLM will one day be able to inspect the data itself by sampling the database)

While AI assistants can give ideas how to address something I'd strongly contradict the statement "there is no point in learning". You should understand the AI suggestion because it could also be very bad or working incorrectly. (If it hallunicated, you'll note the syntax error, that does indeed not require learning...)