I think it got plenty of investment in the sense of zero relevant work despite many man-years. Even low-value Arxiv fodder has better payoff than that (because it's not 0). And it's obvious why it doesn't work, and never will work: the resource requirements are so stringent that they are off by many orders of magnitude on every dimension, from data to flops to RAM. Hence, from the start, the Hutter Prize has incentivized pretty much only bit-twiddling demo-scene-style work.
If you think that $100/month incentivises "plenty of investment" compared to the tens of billions put into less principled "SOTA" measures, I suppose that says all that needs to be said about your credibility.
