That's not quite the issue I'm raising. It's not about being able to communicate better with existing robots - it's where (as yet) there are no robots suitable to do the job.

There are plenty of tasks which are simple, tedious and repetitive - and yet are resistant (currently) to automation. An example is sorting mixed plastic waste into categories according to the type of plastic. This is comparatively trivial for almost any human, and (afaik) not yet possible to automate. (Another is picking and packing things in Amazon's warehouse - which we know they've expended huge effort in trying to solve.)

Look at it the other way around: why are all simple, tedious, repetitive jobs not already automated? It's either because it's possible but not economically feasible, or no-one's tried yet... or because it's really difficult and so far there's no solution.

This last category represents a lot of 'low end' jobs. GPTs are unlikely to move the needle here, as appropriate robots to carry out the tasks don't exist yet.

Let's imagine a world where most jobs that cannot be automated are low end, low skill, low pay jobs... what does this world look like economically? In my eyes this is a world where corporations and the extremely wealthy suck up all the economic benefits and we're left with massive wealth disparity. Assets keep going up in price, but there is no means of monetary velocity to the bottom earners.

I don't disagree (notwithstanding the extent to which we're already in a "world where corporations and the extremely wealthy suck up all the economic benefits and we're left with massive wealth disparity").

My point is much more narrow (and simple): that there is a subset of low-end jobs which are currently unautomatable due to their nature, and this will likely not change via the GPTs. This may (tending to will, given sufficient time) change via other technological advancements.