I agree with you, but one correction: the bullshit is on the twitter post that this article links to (in the first sentence) and by extension on the article.
The paper itself [1] doesn't say "replace" anywhere: the purpose was to measure where AI has an "impact". They even say (in the discussion)
It is tempting to conclude that occupations that have high overlap with activities AI performs will be automated and thus experience job or wage loss... This would be a mistake ... Take the example of ATMs, which ... led to an increase in the number of bank teller jobs as banks opened more branches at lower costs and tellers focused on more valuable relationship-building...
Overall this post says something about the sad state of twitter and search: I had to dig though quite a few articles which repeated this job replacement crap before I could even find the title of the article (which was then easy to find on arXiv). And go figure, the authors didn't mean to make the statement everyone says they made.
Oh! Fair enough, I guess I am part of the problem in this particular case, because I uncritically assumed that someone on Twitter was telling the truth.
Looking through the actual paper now, yeah I think actually more or less agree with the writers.