A big school called MIT did a study about machines taking people's jobs. They found out that it will not happen very fast because it costs too much money to use machines instead of humans. Only a small part of the jobs can be done by machines and still be cheaper than paying people. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalist. It suggests that AI won't take jobs just yet, but then adds a caveat that implies there might be some hidden AIger or problem lurking in the background. This creates confusion and uncertainty for the reader, who may wonder what the real message of the article is.
2. The body of the article contradicts the title by presenting evidence that AI will indeed take jobs at a faster rate than expected, as it becomes cheaper to replace workers with AI-as-a-service. This undermines the claim that AI won't take jobs just yet and makes the caveat irrelevant or false.
3. The article relies heavily on studies from MIT and the IMF, without providing any critical analysis or counterarguments. This creates a biased and one-sided view of the issue, which may not reflect the full complexity and nuance of the problem.
4. The article uses emotional language and phrases such as "workers everywhere are trying to predict whether AI will take their jobs", "worsening income inequality and social tensions", and "hidden AIger or problem lurking in the background". This appeals to the reader's fears and emotions, rather than presenting a rational and objective analysis of the data and facts.
5. The article does not address the ethical implications and social consequences of AI replacing human labor, such as the loss of dignity, identity, creativity, and autonomy for workers. This leaves the reader with an incomplete and unsatisfying picture of the issue, which may not reflect the full impact and scope of the problem.