To be clear: The researchers of the Foundation Models paper never claim anything related to AGI. They actually put out a decent survey and research avenues for transfer-learning with large-scale pretraining. AGI is only referred to once in the context of AI safety to make an entirely unrelated point. The only gripe with the original paper is with the attempt to coopt the field under their term(s).
It is the journalist in the OP article that jumps the shark towards AGI.
Besides, there is definitely statistics and an engineering art towards 'hand-scripting' game AI. I wouldn't be so dismissive of video game AI.
Sorry, I didn't mean those particular researchers were bullshitting, or that some games don't use legitimate "AI" techniques, but those are orthogonal to the commonly understood meaning of the term "AI" in the game industry, which is "whatever code controls the non-player characters" (regardless of what programming techniques it uses), as opposed to making the grass wave, rendering triangles, vibrating the speaker, networking, user interface, etc.
Games can certainly use legitimate AI programming techniques, like GPUs with "AI Upscaling", but that's not considered "Game AI" (as seen in job descriptions) since it has nothing to do with controlling NPC behavior.
It is the journalist in the OP article that jumps the shark towards AGI.
Besides, there is definitely statistics and an engineering art towards 'hand-scripting' game AI. I wouldn't be so dismissive of video game AI.