"The goal is to do things like self driving cars. "
Replacing a human driver takes an AGI at least for the exceptional or new situations. It's why we're including it as a counter instead of supporting point.
Nope, not at all. Like I said, we have had autonomous vehicles operating in normal traffic for decades now. Autonomous vehicles do not require AGI, far from it. Waymo, Uber, Tesla and more are all competing to bring autonomous vehicles to the mass consumer market and indeed most estimates claim that we'll have autonomous trucks by 2027: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08807
I hate how everyone thinks they know enough to talk about AI because it's so buzzy/trendy right now.
Modern AI is not pretending to be AGI. No one is claiming to be going for AGI, and whatever successes we have been seeing lately have to do with applied AI in solving specific problems, not AGI.
Define normal traffic. Last time I read on it, the autonomous vehicles couldn't handle rain and some other weather conditions without a human operator. Then abnormal situations can still require a human operator. The AI has to correctly detect its own inadequacy and then hand ig over to human who must react in time starting out distracted by whatever they are doing. Safe, automated handling of these situations might take a broader AI thaf understands context.
Note: I'm all for getting data that shows the narrow AI's have been corrected to handle what I described.
I hate how everyone thinks they know enough to talk about AI because it's so buzzy/trendy right now.
Modern AI is not pretending to be AGI. No one is claiming to be going for AGI, and whatever successes we have been seeing lately have to do with applied AI in solving specific problems, not AGI.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_autonomous_cars
BTW did you even look at the survey? Because that's the opinion of actual AI researchers across the world.
This is easily Google able info, BTW, clearly your background is not AI.