On the other hand, one can conduct blind tests that show that many phenomena cannot be reliably differentiated by a listener. Different listeners also have different levels of ability to discriminate sounds and sound quality. So when testing audio equipment using listening tests, one needs to consider the panel of listeners that one uses. Typically there are trained panels of listeners (who have received basic training and shown statistically an ok ability to discriminate) and "consumer" panels which are just random people off the street. The two groups will give very different ratings -especially for "medium" sound quality equipment.

For info on the former, see any decent book on psychoacoustics. And for the latter see for example Sensory Evaluation of Sound (Nick Zacharov et al).

The goal is to triple the number of data centers over the next years. It is not like there is nothing going on...

On a more risk-strategy level there is the size of their legal team, general endowment, and supplier and political connections to consider.

Everyone is free to ignore their ToU, but I can understand why a company would avoid it...

But for a national lab I think it is money well spent to figure out the possibilities and limitations of a native-language LLMs for languages with order of 5M-10M speakers.

Furthermore one can reuse investments in data (both agreements, infrastructure and datasets), compute (GPUs, servers) and know-how (training scripts, experienced engineers).