He's saying: "Expertise improves AI-assisted work, experts can steer better and get more out of models."

The obvious conclusion for anyone is "therefore experts will remain the indispensable and specially rewarded center of the production process."

That this is appearing exactly now, and in this form, strikes me as extremely suspicious. I don't doubt the author's sincerity on the surface. What I suspect is that anxiety over the possibility that the (unstated) conclusion might be false (!) motivates the argument in the first place.

I'm asking the question, "Why is this argument appearing now?" At least one reason seems to me to be, "because we're afraid of what the world could look like if it's not true."