Comment by atleastoptimal

> No, it's pointing out that "text and art generative models" are far less useful [1] than machines that would be just as little smarter at boring ordinary work, to relieve real normal people from drudgery.

That makes no sense. Is alphafold less useful than a minimum wage worker because alphafold can't do dishes? The past decades of machine learning have revealed that the visual-spatial capacities that are commonplace to humans are difficult to replicate artificially. This doesn't mean the things which AI can do well are necessarily less useful than the simple hand-eye coordination that are beyond their current means. Intelligence and usefulness isn't a single dimension.