(I'm convinced that programmers will take the AI-automating-all-the-jobs idea more seriously once it's their own jobs that are on the line)
There are a few ways I can think of to object to this line of reasoning:
1) You could argue that programming will be a job that never gets automated away. But this seems unlikely--previous intellectual tasks (Chess, Jeopardy, Go) were thought to be "essentially human", and once they were solved by computers, got redefined as not "essentially human" (and therefore not AI). My opinion: In the same way we originally thought tool use made humans unique, then realized that other animals use tools too, we'll eventually learn that there's no fundamental uniqueness to human cognition. It'll be matter & algorithms all the way down. Of course, the algorithms could be really darn complicated. But the fact the Deepmind team won at both Go and Atari using the same approach suggests the existence of important general-purpose algorithms that are within the reach of human software engineers.
2) You could argue that programming will be automated away but in a sense that isn't meaningful (e.g. you need an expensive server farm to replace a relatively cheap human programmer). This is certainly possible. But in the same way calculators do arithmetic much faster & better than humans do, there's the possibility that automated computer programmers will program much faster & better than humans. (Honestly humans suck so hard at programming https://twitter.com/bramcohen/status/51714087842877440 that I think this one will happen.) And all the jobs that we've automated 'til now have been automated in this "meaningful" sense.
Neither of these objections hold much water IMO, which is why I take the intelligence explosion scenario described by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom seriously: http://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-N...