Part of the prediction came true, but in a mixed and short‑lived way, and the 10–20x productivity claim is not clearly borne out.

1. Did “prompt engineer” emerge as a recognized job title and valued skill?
Yes, at least for a time. In 2023–24, major outlets reported “prompt engineer” as a new job title created by the rise of generative AI, explicitly describing it as a specialty focused on crafting prompts for systems like ChatGPT and quoting industry leaders on its importance.(axios.com) High‑profile postings such as Anthropic’s “Prompt Engineer and Librarian” role with a six‑figure salary band, along with salary surveys and 2024–25 guides listing prompt engineer as a discrete role with defined ranges, show that the title was real, niche but visible, and often very well paid.(promptjobs.com) Numerous training and certification providers now market prompt engineering as a core AI skill and “career booster,” reinforcing that it is a recognized and valued capability even when the exact job title is not used.(store.aicerts.ai)

However, by 2024–25 several analyses and labor‑market observers noted that job postings explicitly titled “Prompt Engineer” were relatively rare, with the work increasingly folded into broader roles like ML engineer, AI engineer, or automation architect. An economist at Indeed’s Hiring Lab is quoted saying she rarely sees it as a standalone job title, and multiple 2025 articles argue that prompt engineering has effectively shifted from a distinct job to an embedded skill.(techspot.com) So the title did emerge and gain recognition, but it did not stabilize as a large, enduring standalone profession; instead, the skill became more mainstream while the dedicated role remained small and in some areas is already fading.

2. Are top practitioners widely seen as 10–20x more productive than average knowledge workers using AI tools?
There is a strong narrative that AI “power users” or expert prompt engineers achieve order‑of‑magnitude gains, but this is mostly marketing language and anecdote, not a clearly established labor‑market consensus. Many blogs, courses, and webinars in 2024–25 explicitly claim that mastering prompt engineering or power‑user workflows can give “10x better results” or make people “10x more productive,” often positioning a small group of expert prompters against more casual AI users.(aitoolbook.ai) These claims echo the “10x engineer” trope the predictor referenced.

That said, this 10–20x figure is largely rhetorical. There is little rigorous, large‑scale evidence quantifying prompt engineers as being 10–20 times more productive than average AI‑using knowledge workers, and the messaging tends to lump prompt engineering into broader AI power‑use rather than a narrowly defined “prompt engineer” occupation. At the same time, other analyses emphasize that as models improve and tools help generate prompts automatically, the distinct advantage of specialist prompt engineers is shrinking and their work is being absorbed into more technical or hybrid roles.(techspot.com)

Overall:

• The prediction that prompt engineering would become a recognizable title and valued professional skill within a few years is partly right: the title did appear, gained media and hiring visibility, and commanded high salaries in some postings, while the underlying skill became widely promoted and integrated into many roles.(axios.com)
• The stronger claim—that top prompt engineers would sustainably be seen as 10–20x more productive than average AI‑using knowledge workers—is not clearly established beyond hype and anecdotal marketing, and the standalone role is already being questioned or downplayed in 2025.(techspot.com)

Because some key elements materialized but others are overstated or weakly supported, the fairest overall judgment is ambiguous rather than clearly right or wrong.