I think this is an oversimplification. It's a variation of the response to the complaint that "devs are just being turned into managers now" with "but they're still making things, and isn't doing that why they became devs?"
I'd argue that, in this scenario, they're not. If I make a product specification and hand that off to another person to make something to that specification, I haven't made that thing, the other person has.
To reduce the job to just shipping things seems like an oversimplification to me because there's a reason why devs chose software engineering as the means of doing that. Why not make something else in a different field entirely? There has to be something about creating software that fulfills needs beyond just shipping.
It's a bit like saying the purpose of company is to generate profit. That's true, but it's so much of an oversimplification as to be misleading. If the point is just profit, why does the company make whatever it is they make, rather than make the thing that is the easiest to maximize profit doing?
It's because there is a lot more to it than just that. Oversimplification distorts reality and makes it difficult to really understand the situation.
> the question is not whether you are okay with it or not, but, rather, how are you going to adapt to the enviroment you inhabit that just changed ?
For a whole lot of people, the question really is whether or not they're OK with it. If they can't be OK with it, then there's no point in adapting to the new environment. It will make them unhappy. Better to escape and find something else that has a chance of being fulfilling.
That said, we're not (yet, anyway) actually in a world where all software development involves outsourcing to genAI. A huge number of software development positions have yet to be changed at all. They aren't really in the silicon valley/forest circles, but they do exist.