I think we are passing each other by in addressing different core points. (which i'll specify more clearly below, I may not have done so as explicitly as I thought)

I am not arguing with a claim that AI will forever result in a net-negative of jobs. I'm not certain how this will play out, but you & I probably agree (my apologies if I read too much into your comment) that things will likely, as with past technological disruptions, level out, new different jobs created, likely no need for long term anxiety or panic on a macroscopic level. Going back to the publishing company I worked for, innovations going on elsewhere in the field meant that costs for publications, and even very high quality publications, dropped so significantly that lots of places that couldn't previously afford such things could now do so. More publishing meant more jobs for designers, copywriters, marketing folks to determine their strategic use, etc... lots and lots of new jobs.

On to what I intended as my main point: I was addressing the claim by the article's authors that worrying about this process amounted to moral panic, forgetting the history of past innovations, etc. I strongly disagree. The changes to required skills will mean that not everyone qualified for the old jobs will easily transition to new ones. Some never will, and a portion of those won't do so because it's not a realistic possibility for them [1]. I saw the publishing revolution evolve over more than a decade. It came for different jobs at different time. The people in the pathway of that have plenty of reason be anxious or panic a bit about the-- at minimum-- upheaval of their lives or if they're really unfortunate lasting economic difficulties.

[1] This is for (at least) two main reasons:

1) Age. Plenty of people in the twilight of their working years may be able to reskill and find other jobs, but plenty won't. Maybe some won't have the aptitude for it, some won't have the economic ability to take time off from receiving a paycheck to do so, and so on. And even if they do, they're starting off fresh in a new line of work without job experience in it, so they're at the bottom of the pay ladder, entry level work. Ageism is also a thing. A 62 year old person with 40 decades of pre-digital expertise typesetting & related skills loses their job. They spend 6 months or longer paying to learn new skills in digital equivalents. They try to get a job and they are A) competing against a mass of younger people that are "native" to this technology and B) having their resumes reviewed by people that see a candidate with little direct experience in the required tech who might very well be quitting into retirement just as they're starting to become most useful after learning the job.

2) Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to look back at these shifts and say "well they should have seen the way the industry was moving and made changes earlier". But that ignores the fact that such dramatic shifts are often not obvious in the moment. At the very beginning of such things-- even before hand when the tech is invented but not adopted-- there will be people saying "X is dying!". And then for years people hear that message while very little changes By the time a decent fraction of things have shifted enough that maybe the future is a little clearer people have also heard "X is dying!" for so long that it's just noise and they become hardened against the message. Some will manage, some won't, some will get trapped in the "age" scenario I detailed.

In short: Society probably doesn't need to panic about this, especially when taking a long term view. But individual industries and people in specific types of jobs are, contrary to the general point by the article's author, quite justified in having a little bit of "OMG we're f'ed!". In fact it is exactly those people doing that right now who will-- by virtue of their fear and panic-- be most likely to take steps early in these shifts to reposition themselves either by business pivot or job skills to weather the change.

If you're a copywriter in advertising & marketing right now and you feel comfortable, if you're going about your daily work and you're not panicking at least a little bit, that's a problem. LLM's may only (right now) turn out mediocre results so those sorts of tasks but lets face it: A majority of ads, marketing, and other writing churned out by humans today is also mediocre and uninspired. The people in those fields that are quite reasonable panicking right now are the ones who will either A) Improve their throughput productivity to be one of the few remaining workers churning out a larger amount of the same mediocre work or B) Using the output of these new tools to bootstrap the process of generating a bunch of mediocre options and then using human-level intelligence to sort through the results and polish on up into something much better than mediocre.