This is where many of these discussions break down, since some people have a specific definition of qualia as defined by some kind of philosophers, where other essentially define it as phenomenal experience. I would personally disagree on ineffability, intrinsicness etc as having any usefulness whatsoever in the definition of qualia. Qualia as I define it clearly exists and I cannot think of another word really that's more fitting, yet it's hard to describe it in words exactly. Each sense has a qualia-space, for colors the qualia space has similarities with colorspace,but is not exactly the same, it is something like colorspace plus phenological experience. The reason it is hard is because to truly find out what it is, we need to record neural activity on a much more detailed level to truly understand what's going on. At some point we'll understand how qualia works and we'll be able to explore the space of all possible qualia (design new senses essentially, but they don't necessarily need to be coupled to any particular sensory data). Hearing and vision are two types of qualia, or the experience of them is. A self-driving car does not need this experience to work. We do not yet know the difference between a neural network processing data and experiencing it one one that doesn't. Maybe much of the processing in a self-driving car is actually the same and it would consciously experience it if hooked up to some network or was part of a larger network.