I don't understand why "otherwise smart people" feel the need to diminish the potential and successes of ML. When chess was basically solved, it was dismissed brute force, with a sarcastic challenge to do Go, and we now the fate of that challenge.

There used to be, on slashdot and I believe in the early days of HN, this running complaint of the new-at-the-time CSI-style shows, specifically the "enhance" trope: "you can't reconstruct a license plate from a bad frame in a video. That information is just lost. It's not there anymore", they would say, usually with all the aura of letting you in on a secret only a very smart mind could gleam, although there were five others in the same thread making this point.

Today we have superresolution algorithms that can reconstruct license plates from low-res images. Turns out the information wasn't really lost, at least not in the sense applicable to the situation (i. e. you are allowed to train on other data).

Many tech people dismiss such progress as "just statistics", but I haven't seen much of an attempt to find a definition of intelligence that is meaningful different from "just statistics". In fact I doubt it's possible within the realm of science, i. e. without resorting to mind-body dualism.

As to driverless cars: they exist, right now. Google does thousands of miles without any need of human intervention. Yes, maybe it doesn't yet work well enough in a hailstorm. But predicting that these problems will endure for 50 years plus, against a combination of restricting these cars to certain situations, improving the models, and/or improving maps, seems at least as overconfident in your ability to make predictions as those made by self-driving optimists.