You forget that a lot of these are moving the goal posts.

AI beat the top players at all those games, but new rules were introduced until AI researchers mostly abandoned those efforts. For instance, the starcraft AI found a really good build order that let it quickly build "Stalkers", a versatile but relatively weak unit. I will note that that build order had several factors that humans found very surprising (consistently oversaturating resource collection by a lot), then controlled those stalker units so well even world-champion level players couldn't match them, with double the APM (meaning the human was allowed 2 actions for every 1 action the AI could take).

In chess the rules have become ... almost ridiculous. Due to cheating, in chess championships you now are "only allowed to play the moves any of the top 3 AIs would play twice in a match, after the first 5 moves". In other words the rules are utterly dependent on humans being worse than AIs. Like in starcraft, btw, AIs have gotten so confident beating human players that a general critique of AI players is that they've gotten "agressive, to the point it's insulting to human players", as one Youtube video put it.

AIs ... beat the average human at driving cars, hell, even Tesla's autopilot beats something like the 98% percentile driver in safety, and Waymo's "chauffeur" is apparently much better than that. I've used chauffeur, and driven behind/around a car controlled by chauffeur. You know what my main comment is? Waymo's chauffeur religiously follows traffic laws (speed limit, stopping at "stop" signs, taking excessive time to manoeuvre around footpaths, ...), it's incredibly irritating to share the road with it. And safe? I've never had an accident, but it's blatantly obvious to me: Waymo's chauffeur is a much safer driver than I am. And that's with people reacting very aggressive towards it.

The conclusion from people? "It's not safe enough". Somehow that argument does not mean we're taking away 98% of people's driving licenses ... it's a double standard, in other words. Exactly what that's based on, I can't tell you. My theory is that it's 95% based on the terminator movies and 5% on 'people will lose their jobs'.

Oh and if you widen the definition of AIs to any algorithm, then you'll have to admit: AIs ARE trusted above humans. For the following paragraph AI means "algorithm", not necessarily deep learning. Humans cannot fly the vast majority of planes, boats, rockets without "AI" assistance. By this I mean a whole lot of vehicles, from any modern Passenger plane to quadcopters require control inputs that the human nervous system is fundamentally unable to generate. For example, because they're too fast. Modern boats, oil tankers, large container ships, require control inputs that humans can't generate because they're too slow (yes, you can calculate, on paper, and then give control inputs, but nobody does that. It's too hard). For passenger planes, AIs are more trusted than human pilots: there are "autolanding-only" weather conditions. There are no "human pilot only" weather conditions. There are now harbours that have high fines if you let a human control the ship for certain classes of ships.

There are now passenger flights where the pilot's function is the checklist, closing up the plane, and turning on autopilot. Negotiating with ground control, taxiing, taking off, negotiating with ATC, flying the plane, Negotiating again with ground control, landing, taxiing and parking the plane are all done by AI. Some of these functions are even done by deep learning algorithms.

So I contend: the problem with cars is that humans won't LET AIs control cars, and at the moment that describes 95% of the situation. That's still 5% inaccurate, and it will change. Not because Skynet will take over, but because we're building ever more cars that are safer, more performant, more helpful ... generally better because the human driver is surrounded by ever more algorithms. For instance, one example where people, even good drivers, generally agree Tesla's AI does better than themselves is parking. That's a case where people will gladly hand over the reins to AI. Those cases will grow, and grow and grow until humans are out, legislated out even, as is partly done in aviation today.

And, frankly, the problem is not the question "how do we make an algorithm control the car better", but the answer to the question "if a human gets an AI to do something so difficult/stupid it fails, who pays for damages?". That's at least 50% of the problem, if not more.

The transition from "humans do everything" to "AIs do everything" is quite a bit further along than the impression you're giving. I agree with the conclusion that we're not there yet, but we're pretty far along.

And, finally, I'd like to reverse your argument. Let's say we're two AIs in the year 30000, discussing:

> It's like saying "Humans can do your taxes". Sure, they can, if you put the correct numbers and formulas into a book and school them with that book for 18 years first. How does it make any sense? My taxes are due this year.