I feel like that difference is overstated. Weaving was once a highly skilled profession requiring intricate control by an intelligent operator yet it was increasingly automated even before the advent of computing.

I think the difference in what we consider "force" work and what is "mind" work is highly subjective to the things we've grown used to thinking of as menial based on the technology we've learned to take for granted.

The new forms of automation seem to be doing nothing but continuing the same gradual trend rather than offering some kind of paradigm shift. For example I have yet to see any automated systems replacing human creativity, when that begins to happen then we really will be in uncharted territory.

Weaving is clearly a mechanical task that required a mind to control the hardware. Problem-solving is not a mechanical task.

> Problem-solving is not a mechanical task

Food for thought: how sure are we that this statement is true? What does it even mean, seen from a cybernetics perspective? How complex does a task need to be until it's not considered mechanical anymore? Isn't the brain, eventually, a very complex biological machine?

Weaving is mechanical yes.

It is also very difficult to do unless you are just making plain single color fabric.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_creativity has some links to examples but I'm on mobile.

These tend to be imitations of an existing style at best with a sprinkling of randomness thrown in, and nonsensical at worst. Certainly nothing fascinating enough to have people queuing to experience it paid ticket in hand. Still, artistic creativity seems like a pretty lofty goal at this point so it wouldn't be the first place I would expect to see genuine creativity emerge.

The computer itself has been a mind multiplier since the beginning. So I don't think it's fair to say that this is something completely new.

The new thing is that computers can learn to learn.

You mean the machine learning stuff, that's been around since 1959?

That machine learning stuff which has been around for the past 60 years out of humanity's, what, 10,000 years of 'modern' humans (starting with the invention of agriculture)? That's only really reached parity with humans on a broad range of cognitive tasks in the past within the last 5-10 years?

Yes, that stuff.

In theory, but we didn't have enough data or computing power for machines to compete with human performance (also algorithmic improvements).

I feel that the disruption isn't going to be completely new compared to past changes but probably across more industries at the same time because machines can soon move and think e.g. Driving, diagnosis, planning (through better prediction), assembly.

and now is finally energy efficient enough for practical usage.