Sure, but how is that a logical argument? Are you just basically assuming that ultimately robots will replace literally everything? I agree very long-term there will be a variety of use cases, but the opening speaks of a 10 year horizon.
So let’s look at your examples:
Cleaning: You’ll have more and more self-cleaning appliances/aspects for sure, with added specialized tools like vacuum robots and windows cleaners today. But a general, especially humanoid like, robot that cleans your bath, then your fridge and finally makes your bed? Can’t imagine, both technically and economically (cleaning personnel exists for centuries, and yet the vast majority of private households cleans themselves).
Cooking: Same thing. Automated coffee and fast food / sandwich shops with very repetitive menus could be built today. Support in the kitchen for dishwashing or cutting veggies will be done with specialized tools. But robots that can replace even below average actual cooks? Technically sure, but at what cost? If you want to automate your restaurant, start with the ordering and payment process. And yes, you may add a humanoid robot instead of a restaurant server as a gimmick, but I don’t even see that as financially viable for most cases.
Police: Agreed that security will be an area where we will see robots. But that is replacing security personnel, not police officers. PO have jobs that require a broad skillset with constant adaptation case-by-case. You can digitalize many of their current bureaucratic aspects, but not replace the human itself with a robot.
Generally, I believe robotics (and digitalization) will significantly transform nearly all jobs, but replace only comparatively few that aren’t already affected today. This believe is not only technically driven (where I agree nearly everything is feasible), but economically: Why build a robot when there is a cheap labour force available? Especially if the large scale industrial use of robots will grow that available labour force tremendously.