The answer to your question all depends on what your definition of imminent is.
If you mean imminent as in inevitable, then the answer is likely yes, because the tools have been released publicly, and any regulation to the contrary will engender certain compromises whose outcome may still not be sufficiently changed because the internet is forever. Someone will do it eventually.
Artists are scared because their creative style can be stolen just by sampling their art.
Service and professional positions are scared because most work is procedural, the middle class positions are being automated away right now, and then the lower class ones will do the same eventually, as everything progresses you will have Von Neumann Machines operating at the behest of corporations, no workers.
Given the rate of development and improvement, it is not outside the realm of possibility that someone finds a way to develop true AI, not this Pseudo Intelligence that we have right now.
That involves machines capable of breaking the fundamental theory of computation which defines classes of problems that machines as we know them can't solve but humans can.
If that problem is ever solved, society will likely completely collapse in short order.
The economy runs on people working through the benefit of a division of labor.
By trading time and productive effort for money which they can then use to survive and purchase food.
If machines can completely replace human workers, any human productive effort will be possible for a computer at that point, they do more production, are fixed cost/lifetime, and don't unionize, and do not tire. The cost trend is clear.
If people can't get food, or have too much time on their hands, and have no hope for the future, or a need or opportunity to become educated, are disenfranchised, disempowered, stripped of agency and voice, then unrest occurs as resources become ever more strained and accumulated by the top.
You end with either MAD between humans, where we go extinct, or enslavement of the whole by a small group of people where most people are no better than cattle, or eradication where a quirk of AI decides to simplify systems by removing and minimizing non-deterministic factors (humans).
Those are the most common theories if thinking machines are not outlawed and destroyed with all global governments on the same page, and related research punishable by death and even then, that may not be enough.
If you want to learn more about why things work the way they do, Adam Smith 1778, Wealth of Nations is a good starting point to understand the division of labor, productive effort, and basics involved with the economy.
Jared Diamond did a decent book called Collapse as well, its dry though.
The odds of survival long term are not good, and that's just a simplified version not including climate change or anything like that. Obviously univariate analysis is of limited worth, but the thing about probabilities is given enough time any possible outcome will eventually happen no matter how remote. If we cannot match and compete at the pace of change because of physical or biological constraints we'll go extinct.