I did read the paper (as I note in the comments). There is very much an implication that some jobs could be replaced by AI, which is acknowledged by the authors in the paper. And certainly that’s how it’s being widely interpreted, which is understandable.
The way they measured was by looking at who was using AI for what. So it's just which careers will incorporate AI. The side effect might be needing fewer people to do those jobs, or it could actually mean more people will be needed to do those jobs because there will be more data.
I found out about the paper because a colleague at ESRI posted an essay by a UCSB geographer who described it as a list of jobs that AI would make obsolete. That’s not actually Ccurate, which I learned afterwards (to my frustration, since I trust the people involved to represent this accurately).