Rise of the Robots--The Future of Artificial Intelligence :How far is it?

Artical URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rise-of-the-robots

(I love this article! Very easy and clear and fit perfectly with my topic.Too bad  we are not going to discuss this on Discussion Board.)

       I've read many articles that explore the future and power of robot from  moral and ethic perspectives, but this one uses concrete data and scientific evidence to evaluate its future and potential; and allows people to have a very clear concept about how it is possible for the chip of a robot to achieve the power of a human brain('Can Hardware Simulate Wetware?'): 

   Level one: 10 MIPS(one million instructions per second) insectlike robot: would be able to track landmarks but can get confused very easily.

   Level two:100,000MIPS mouselike robot: Could be trainable; can improve their work by collecting and analyzing previous data.

   Level three: 5,000,000 MIPS monkeylike robot: can "learn a skill by imitation and afford a kind of consciousness"; can answer simple questions like "why there are candles on the table?"

   Level four: 100million MIPS humanlike robot: "will be able to abstract and generalize"

         However, there are still two problems here. First, the method he used to calculate the capacity of human brain and convert it into measurable unit like MIPS is questionable("The entire human brain is about 75,000 times heavier than the 0.02 gram of processing circuitry in the retina, which implies that it would take, in round numbers,100 million MIPS to emulate the 1,500-gram human brain."). This method works technologically, but in fact our brain's power is way much complexer than this and it can  vary greatly from person to person. For example, how do you decide which person has larger MIPS? Picasso or Kandinsky? Newton or Shakespear? J.K Rowling or Dan Brown? Human brain's diversity, creativity and uniqueness are simply immeasurable(I'm not saying this method is wrong, I'm just saying it's not precise and inclusive enough).
        The second problem is the optimistic attitude towards highly-intelligent humanlike robot: "In that case, mass-produced, fully educated robot scientists working diligently,cheaply,rapidly and increasingly effectively will ensure that most of what science knows in 2050 will have been discovered by our artificial progeny!"

However, there's a paradoxical situation here: if the robots are not as clever and 'conscious' as human being, then there's no obvious breakthrough in this field and most of the jobs still need to be done by ourself; if the robots are indeed as clever and 'conscious' as human being, are they still willing to serve us and obey us, instead of trying to enjoy their own 'life'?