"And what about things people do that don’t make any statistical sense?"

Like what? It is always individual statistics made up from partly faulty data. It is never objective, what mattered in a evolutionary sense, was that it works good enough. (like ants algorithms are not perfect, but get the job done most of the time. I watched ants a lot ...)

So we are intelligent statistical engines but usually very bad at updating our priors. If you make a machine that can drive a car, but doesn’t like to because it’s father frequently had road rage, is that AGI? If you build that but then “fix” that behavior out of it then is it still AGI?

Consciousness is something, I cannot explain at all with statistics (or any other mechanism).

True AGI by my definition would require consciousness, but as far as I know, there is also no general accepted definition of consciousness either.

That's the beauty of the Turing test: it avoids having to worry about consciousness.

(Of course, passing the Turing test wouldn't be necessary for intelligence, at most it's sufficient. Otherwise, humans who lost the ability to produce language but are otherwise quite smart and capable would count as non-intelligent.)