The paradox I identify in your comments is the start & where you end. The start is that AMD's only choice is to re-embark & re-do the years & years of hard work, to catch up.

The end is decrying how impossible & hard it is to imagine anyone ever reproducing anything like CUDA in Vulkan:

> Sure these are all feasible, but who has the incentive to put in the time to do it?

To talk to the first though: what choice do we have? Why would AMD try to compete by doing it all again as a second party? It seems like, with Nvidia so dominant, AMD and literally everyone else should realize their incentive is to compete, as a group, against the current unquestioned champion. There needs to be some common ground that the humble opposition can work from. And, from what I see, Vulkan is that ground, and nothing else is remotely competitive or interesting.

I really appreciate your challenges, thank you for writing them out. It is real hard, there are a lot of difficulties starting afresh, with a much harder to use toolkit than enriched spiced up C++ (CUDA) as a starting point. At the same time, I continue to think there will be a sea-change, it will happen enormously fast, & it will take far less real work than the prevailing pessimist's view could ever have begin to encompassed. Some good strategic wins to set the stage & make some common use cases viable, good enough technics to set a mold, and I think the participatory nature will snowball, quickly, and we'll wonder why we hadn't begun years ago.