Steady and arguably declining draw rates in TCEC imply the opposite, though.
To say "arguably declining" is just a horrible misrepresentation of the facts. Up until TCEC Season 9 in 2016, draw rates in the Superfinal had been steadily increasing (just as they are in World Correspondence Chess Championships), with the most recent sets of openings (that is, for seasons 7 and 8) selected by IM Erik Kislik. Then, for the Season 9 Superfinal, the selection of openings was done by Jeroen Noomen for the first time, resulting in an entirely new range of much sharper starting positions that were clearly handpicked with obvious intent. Coincidentally, the draw rate in the Season 9 Superfinal was much lower than in Season 8, and Noomen has continued to select the Superfinal openings for Seasons 10 and 11 (draw rates were slightly higher than in Season 9).
This is without even mentioning the fact that draw rates in engine matches are heavily influenced by variables such as contempt, dynamism, etc, and thus are not nearly as reliable as WCCC draw rates.
The new breed of engines that are bootstrapping their own play vs. being setup with a dataset of human-derived valuations are going to be that much better.
This remains to be seen, especially if such predictions are solely based on the results of the closed-door match between AlphaZero and Stockfish. It is by now quite widely known that the conditions of the match favored AlphaZero to such an extent as to reduce the event to little more than a publicity stunt. Here is a quote from Tord Romstad which accurately summarizes many of the advantages enjoyed by AlphaZero throughout those famous 100 games:
"The match results by themselves are not particularly meaningful because of the rather strange choice of time controls and Stockfish parameter settings: The games were played at a fixed time of 1 minute/move, which means that Stockfish has no use of its time management heuristics (lot of effort has been put into making Stockfish identify critical points in the game and decide when to spend some extra time on a move; at a fixed time per move, the strength will suffer significantly). The version of Stockfish used is one year old, was playing with far more search threads than has ever received any significant amount of testing, and had way too small hash tables for the number of threads."
I would argue that any self-driven car that follows just the basic parameters, has the same restrictor plates, tires, etc. would create that same letdown effect. The key would simply be watching a self-driven car driving effortlessly through a 10-car crash sequence, draft the leader perfectly on the final lap and slingshot to an easy win, etc.
That would probably be true from the perspective of casual fans, but complaints from experts and/or professionals in the sport would be inevitable. And for good reason -- if, for instance, the cars in such races could be operated (by their human drivers) via some form of remote control, a lot more people would be able to compete in the "sport" (could hardly be considered a sport in that case, obviously) at a very high level. The ability to both ride and operate those vehicles while moving at such high speed within a complex environment is what separates pros from amateurs when it comes to driving. A self-driving car merely emulates a human-driven car; it does not truly replicate, much less surpass, the remarkable skill of human drivers.
In any case, my point was that such an achievement would not demonstrate indisputable superiority of AI within the domain of racecar driving, as you had suggested.
Ermm, yes, I know all about the manipulation of the A0/Stockfish match and was one of the earliest and most vociferous decriers of Google's shenanigans here in these very forums 
...that being said , the bootstrap method is going to work. I predicted years before A0 that engines would see a big jump in ratings when they stopped using human valuations and relied only on engine play sans opening books and eliminating all human influence on what constitutes "best play" entirely.
Point made on TCEC, though increasing draw rates could definitely turn out to be a "false positive" type of test, since it only takes one narrow set of lines to force a win (or one, but I would highly doubt it could turn out to be just a single line in the entire tree).
On the Indy 500, I was just drawing an analogy about humanity's level of conceit in mankind's abilities, so...I have at no time argued some inevitable indisputable superiority of AI in racing. When I said "wait until a self-driving car wins the Indy 500" I was referring to the reaction it will cause if and when it happens, not that I think it's imminent. I could have made the same analogy using Paul Bunyan ...but, quite frankly, most people reading here are seemingly not that well read, so car racing seems more accessible.
]
Sorry, playing bulldog moves now.😄