Re: So if this goes through, everyone has to be sued in their state of incorporation
"You could then argue the same for medical patents, mechanical patents, and everything else."
Not really. Because there's a lot of chemistry, hit-or-miss, and most importantly legal compliance involved, medical developments will necessarily be slow. You basically have to prove your medicine safe by contradiction, and especially in humans, these things take time to make sure you don't miss on long-term consequences. Not to mention in this day and age every single attempt at a new medicine can run easily into nine figures (with no guarantees at all), you soon realize that pharmaceutical companies may be among the most lucrative but also among the most volatile.
"Autonomous vehicles are another example. The deep learning portion is nonphysical, but the basis of those various implementations might live on for decades in cars, drones, etc. Should it be granted only transient protection, even if the product line it first appears in will last for 15+ years?"
But they manifest in a physical product. That would be considered worthy of a longer patent. I'm talking about stuff that only exists in programs like pure algorithm patents (remember CompuServe and the GIF tussle?).
"What motivation does Google, MIT, Uber, or others have to patent those algorithms and designs if they know protection might only last a short time."
As long as it's long enough, the economics will prompt them to do it. The trick is finding the right length that it's economically worthwhile but not so long as to smother continuing innovation.
To counter your counter, consider that nonphysical patents are probably the most trolled patents in litigation today. Also why there's a lot of talk about submarine patents and other attempts to stifle competitive innovation. It's a two-way street; protecting your own interests and blocking the competition go hand in hand, and sometimes the give-and-take needs to be re-evaluated.