I found a few things through a Google search. I understand that a system of laws that generates complexity is exceptional and not merely rare. But if we take the die example, then although I would indeed look for an explanation for an exceptional result—for example, the explanation would be that the die is loaded—we still would not then ask why that is so; rather, we would simply accept the fact that the die is loaded.
And now to the laws: we ask how there can be exceptional life (and not merely rare life), and then we arrive at the conclusion that the explanation for this is laws (just as we arrive at the conclusion that there is a loaded die).
Now one could argue that just as we would not look for an explanation for the loaded die that produced an exceptional result, so too we should not look for an explanation for the system of laws that produced an exceptional result.
If so, why should we look for an explanation of those explanations that explain exceptional things? (The exceptional things of course require an explanation, an explanation that we have already found.)

It may be that there has already been a discussion of this topic; I just didn’t find anything specific about it.

The explanation is the loaded die. And if there is such a die, someone made it that way. Of course we would look for an explanation.

I understand. And then in practice, if we go backward along the chain, we will arrive at some laws that determined it.
But why must we go all the way to God, rather than stopping at the laws? In other words, if God created a result that is complex, then He Himself is also complex, and one can ask about Him too: who created Him? But because of the infinite regress, we have to stop somewhere. So why stop at God and not at the laws themselves?

What is the advantage of stopping at an intelligent being, as opposed to stopping the chain at the laws of nature?

I answered this as well both in the book and here on the site. Briefly, the laws are not entities but descriptions of how things operate, and therefore they cannot create anything. If you see the laws as entities, then that is God. No problem. Note that this proof does not assume anything about God; it only shows that some primary entity must exist that did all this.
In my personal view, if the initial creator is not a volitional being, then the questions arise about it as well. Therefore it is more reasonable that it is volitional. A volitional being does not itself need to be complex in order to create something complex. It plans it and creates it. That makes the question of sufficient reason about it unnecessary. Beyond that, the tradition (from revelation) that has reached me also says that it is volitional, and that joins the a priori consideration.

Understood. Thank you very much for these pearls of wisdom!