It's another case of "your profession will be automated and replaced", which has always historically proven to be both true and false.
The "professions" that get replaced typically aren't professions by the time they can be reliably automated, in that they are usually monotonous tasks that don't contribute to the advancement of any field.
Everything evolves, but the bulk of people creating new software are still coding it after decades, just the same as the bulk of musicians creating new music are still playing instruments after centuries and millennia.
Perhaps our coding tools will eventually become so advanced we can just think it and a piece of software will be created, but that's also boring and unchallenging and will likely have the equivalent creative value of singing into a voice-changing social media filter. We have this in the present day but people still write and perform songs that others perceive as valuable.
The goalposts of what constitutes "creating" reliably move just as much as people continue to need to get their hands dirty in order to craft actual innovation.
The "no-code movement" is perhaps more an example of a "no-movement" trying to masquerade as a movement.
I don't mean to deride it, some things can and should be automated, and this is valuable in itself as it shifts the goals of innovation along. But it's misleading to elevate such things higher than their pay-grade.
And sure, maybe sometime AI and deep-learning could anticipate and create everything we need - "the singularity", etc - but at such a point, that innovation itself has been automated, we'll all probably just happily hang out at the beach, as there'd be no more work left to be done anyway.