It's the richest large country by miles.

That doesn't imply we know what to do with it. by all evidence we are one of the worst countries on earth at rationally distributing resources

"it" didn't down from the sky. "it" came about from good capital allocation.

It's not a project. It's just a lot of money being spent on compute across hundreds/thousands of similar projects.

An analogy would be "all the money spent on transportation infra" over some period of time.

Lol, it's not an argument from authority.

The claim isn't "google said so". It's "google is doing so". It's a claim to incentives and rational actors, or perhaps to revealed preferences.

If you want to get on a high horse around logical fallacies, make sure to understand them, else you reveal... something else, about yourself.

Google is doing something != they are doing the rational thing.

Suggesting otherwise is defintionally argument from authority.

You know you can just admit you’re a sophist and we can move on.

That's why it's a "claim".

Learn basic english before moving onto the big words :)

We already have a mechanism. Contract law.

Just stop thinking of software products. There are a million businesses offering solid value propositions that need a lot of software to run, but software isn't the product.

Path dependence is a thing.

Maybe, but how exactly are you defining "code quality" ?

This is an absurd statement. There are many complex undertakings in sport where even the very best get better with practice and can't tell you why. In fact, the ones who think they can tell you why are the one's to be most skeptical of.

You are just making stuff up or regurgitating material from a pop science book.

They can't tell you (not everyone is eloquent), but they sure know why. Struggling to put something in word is not the same as not knowing.

Much of human behavior is evolved so that we don't understand why. For example human morality is an evolved trait, but you wouldn't know it.

Please explain walking to me so that I can explain it to a person who forgot how to walk such that he can walk after the explanation.

Nope, they don't.

"Designed" is a bit strong. We "literally" couldn't design programs to do the interesting things LLMs can do. So we gave a giant for loop a bunch of data and a bunch of parameterized math functions and just kept updating the parameters until we got something we liked.... even on the architecture (ie, what math functions) people are just trying stuff and seeing if it works.

Saying ML is a field where deterministic code would work just fine conveniently leaves out the difficult part - writing the actual code.... Which we haven't been able to do for most of the tasks at hand.

What you are saying is fantasy nonsense.

They did not leave it out.

> but the amount of cases it would need to cover is too large to be practical (note, this has nothing to do with the impossibility of its design)

It's not only too large - we can't even enumerate all the edge cases, let alone handle them. It's too difficult.

And all you have to do is write an infinite amount of code to cover all possible permutations of reality! No big deal, really.

Using your logic, we don’t need quantum computers to break encryption, we could just use pen and paper.

> would work just fine, but the amount of cases it would need to cover is too large to be practical

So it doesn't work.

It is impossible to design even in a theoretical sense if functional requirements consider matters such as performance and energy consumption. If you have to write petabytes of code you also have to store and execute it.

No, it's not common for the startup itself to make capital calls. The phrase (and your link) refers to capital calls made by VC firms to their limited partners. Same thing in PE.