Replacing/substitution implies maintaining productivity, something the authors did not investigate at all. They did not even consider the alternative hypothesis that these are really layoffs - cynical or based on hype that hasn’t realized much substitution for actual labor. It also does not account for businesses failing.

This paper is mostly just, “cum hoc ergo propter hoc”. It points to some other correlations to suggest that workers are losing employment in industries where LLMs are, “more likely” to succeed (a position they never justify).