Wikipedia seems to be an example of humans scaling.

Google products have up to 2 billion users. It's nearly impossible to scale any human support to this size.

Because it's actually billions of users. It's a billion of users for Google Maps. It's two billion of users for Youtube. It's nearly a billion for GMail. And the requests for those different products have to go to different support personnel.

In areas where there's significantly less users they do provide human support, for example in GCP.

I work for a product with big numbers too. We have humans reading the support queue (with a lot of engineering to prefilter and group for bulk replies and what not). People may or may not like our support, or may complain it's not as good as it used to be, but it's there.

Frankly, we couldn't have as many users as we do without a human connection in support. Users tell us what we're doing wrong, and what we need to do that we're not doing, and where we need to improve --- but only if you listen to them.

> Frankly, we couldn't have as many users as we do without a human connection in support.

Different companies and different products are different. It looks like many Google products are good enough to attract many users without support.

If it's impossible to provide human support for a system, and if it's possible to automatically exploit the system to affect a nontrivial fraction of users, then perhaps the system shouldn't have billions of users?

There's resilience in diversity.

> then perhaps the system shouldn't have billions of users

How do you imagine Google Maps achieving that? Telling people "oh, sorry, can't serve you today"?