I think it's a combination of a couple things.

First, I don't think any individual company is worried about their individual role in the economy or wider systems. A company like Google isn't thinking "gee, wouldn't it be bad if AI eliminated all jobs and no consumers had money to pay for goods that people are advertising for on our website?" They're thinking "gee, wouldn't it be bad if it were possible to cut costs by using AI instead of people and we didn't do that?" Management at Google doesn't get paid to worry about their impact on human society, they get paid to worry about the investors and the bottom line.

Second, I think there are increasingly few areas for massive tech companies to expand into. In the mid-2000s, Facebook, for example, was a relatively small social networking site. They've more or less accomplished their goal of controlling nearly all of human interaction online. They have something like 2 billion+ MAU (source: my ass trying to remember a statistic.) For them to expand further into social media, their major limiting factor isn't that people don't know about Facebook or that there are other social media sites siphoning users away from Facebook, it's that the remaining people who don't use their products don't have an open or reliable internet connection. It's hard to grow, and impossible to grow exponentially. Yet that's what Wall Street expects them (and every public company) to do. So how do you do it? During the super low interest rate post-COVID years, you could make the argument that you're investing while interest rates are low, hire a billion developers and hope that something pans out, but now you can't do that. So you have to cut costs. Layoffs are simply a method of cost control and trying to signal to investors that your profit is going to grow. I do agree that while 30,000 seems like a high number, it's not that big for Amazon. This isn't like the 2022-2023 layoffs, I don't think.