If any device that humans build will obtain some level of AGI, it will be a car. Cars are in fact the most advanced devices humans have built- effectively they are telecomms, computer and power generation platforms that happen to have wheels attached. Cars continuously receive all sorts of rich inputs and we couple them to sophisticated communications and computing platforms ... to the point where the driver can often let the car assume many details of managing driving safety. Every new generation of car, we add more efficiency, computing capacity, networking capability, and the designers get feedback almost immediately.

Eventually, the full-self-driving folks will realize that to get the last 10% of human performance on the road, they'll need to make systems that have far more capability that we provide now (in terms of computing capacity, model complexity, neural net design) to handle those rare situations where a human is actually required to so some sophisticated reasoning to drive their car past a messy accident in the snow while inebriated people walk around.

I used to think that a TPU pod (or really, several clusters of TPU pods working in concert) would be the next step to AGI (demonstrating a combination of the best of all our current systems to the point that nobody even cares about the Turing Test anymore) but now I conclude that disembodied systems like that (with access to lots of archived data but not many real-time input streams) are more likely to become idiot-savants sitting around wondering WHY THE HUMANS WANT ME TO DRAW "A transparent sculpture of a duck made out of glass. The sculpture is in front of a painting of a landscape." AGAIN!?

Likely yes, although the article [1] says that's required, not sufficient.

[1] well, the title, in the grand HN tradition I haven't of course actually read the article.

Are you suggesting that Tesla's FSD bears any relation to AGI?