Well, yes and no -- creative is a pretty useless word it turned out. That Bach AI was bloody forever ago, and I've listened to a fair bit of its work -- I'm 100% convinced that AI write a large portion of the music today, because they've been able to match the greatest composers in history for decades.

On the other hand, it's been technically possible to replace the entire stock-room of a Wal~Mart for years, and at least theoretically possible to replace everyone but maintenance, AP, maybe the meat, deli and bakery and a few managers. Wal~Mart could have maybe 40 employees, instead of 500. What stands in the way is that wages have successfully been kept low enough they don't feel it is worth the initial investment to replace the humans yet.

As for solving diseases -- that's already basically an AI job, nature of the beast with medicine. The primary source of new medication is same as it ever was, tweaks to existing stuff, or random testing until something works. Without computers, that random testing would yield a lot fewer results whatever. Not to say AI can 100% replace human researchers, but, it doesn't need to, there aren't that many research jobs to begin with. The most common jobs are retail, fast food, truck driving, secretarial work -- and all of that is 100% replaceable.

I take your broader point, and I'd actually 100% agree that we're well out from a 'robot apocalypse' -- but the key word there is 'robot'; we're a long, long way from good robots.