However, dogs became widespread pets in almost every culture even the same Asian ones where they're also eaten. That's proof alone that not only most of the time there was plenty of food for humans without eating dog, but that they actually found reason to feed them! Yes, I'm aware they were probably originally just scavengers of our scraps, but they did become pets. In a basic sense dogs are parasites and ancient human beings were giant suckers for sharing precious and hard to comeby resources with them. That an unromantic enough interpretation?
There is, of course, the 'working dog' hypothesis that the protection, aid in hunting, etc. made it a mutalistic relationship rather than a parasitic one, but more and more that's just not adding up, and that the benefit to dogs in being around humans greatly outweighs the benefit to humans in keeping dogs.
That's why I think that it's more of our evolved aultrism. It helps us survive by helping each other, and the fact that it makes us feel good to do it is all the more evolutionarily reinforcing.
So which do you like better? That Grok had evolved to love, and thus help his family survive by keeping them together, and dogs were an accidential benificary, or that he was just too stupid to realize 'hey, instead of going into the woods to look for food why not just kill that thing gnawing the bones of last night's kill?'