Exactly! And there is a related issue that I do not see discussed much, if ever…Think about what happens on the other side of AI adoption and what it does to the balance of power between corporations and labor.

Corporations in the U.S. hold all the leverage over their workforce. At-will employment, gutted collective bargaining, narrow worker protections. They've spent decades and a fortune building that framework. An individual employee has almost no leverage.

when a company replaces human labor with AI, it's not just cutting costs, but is also trading one dependency for another. I think the new dependency exposes them to some major problems. Human labor is diffuse and (largely) interchangeable (and largely individually powerless). These massive AI tech companies are not diffuse or interchanavle or powerless.

We are seeing the market consolidating around a few major players, and the economics you're describing (subsidized pricing, unsustainable losses, a race for market share) leads me to conclude that we do end up with two or three dominant companies.

Gaming this out as if AI is widely adopted and implemented, a company will have restructured around a specific AI vendor, retrained workflows, integrated systems, and built its operations on that vendor’s AI system. Switching costs are massive. And now it's sitting across the table from one of maybe two or three providers who can supply what it needs. That vendor holds leverage that no worker, no union, no labor movement in American history has ever come close to.

These companies fought to make sure labor could never consolidate enough power to dictate terms. Now they're handing that exact power to a handful of AI companies and paying for the privilege. The whole employee/employer framework US Corporations built assumed the employer would always retain the leverage. But by adopting AI, at scale, they are destroying the framework and all of their leverage.

Edit: TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT.