> as if there's this straight-line path of progress
I think your rebuttal is really bizarre. OP is simply saying what they want AI to do.
> Who is to say that "washing dishes" (to use your example) is a less complicated problem than art
I think dish washing is a bad example, because we have dishwashers. But until the market brings AI and robotic solutions to market at an affordable cost that actually fulfill most people's needs, it will continue to be a net drain on the average person.
You don't get to tell people what they want or need.
I guess what I was getting at (and I'll acknowledge that I didn't word it as well as I should), is something along the lines of: "what if automating art is a necessary step if we want to automate the boring stuff?"
I think you are probably right. But what is really frustrating about this is the lack of alignment on what people want vs what industries need.
We talk so much about how capitalism is built around people's needs, but that betrays another reality, which is that people only get what capitalism produces.
If we were a planned economy we could skip right to an android in everyone's homes. But we wouldn't even have the tech for the android with a planned economy. So instead, we have to feed capitalism what it needs so it can innovate. Which sometimes is just a net loss for everyone in the meantime.
I think your rebuttal is really bizarre. OP is simply saying what they want AI to do.
> Who is to say that "washing dishes" (to use your example) is a less complicated problem than art
I think dish washing is a bad example, because we have dishwashers. But until the market brings AI and robotic solutions to market at an affordable cost that actually fulfill most people's needs, it will continue to be a net drain on the average person.
You don't get to tell people what they want or need.