This works well for tech, because a good design can be scaled to serve the whole world, and we can outsource manufacturing to companies like China or Taiwan who are better at cost-effectiveness. (And have lower wages. Maybe that's the entire explanation.)

Even if they could somehow cash out their entire market cap, Google's is >4x theirs. AND if they quit, their competitors' valuations go up. AND there's nothing to stop those employees from leaving and founding new AI companies.

I characterize the culture of companies based on who works there. Anthropic is founded by people who left OpenAI because it didn't take safety seriously enough. But if AI development has to happen, they want to be the ones leading it. People who do not feel that way, including Anthropic's former head of safety, just don't work there.

Generally, corporations spending billions of dollars on lobbyists is frowned upon. I suspect individual Anthropic employees may make significant donations to AI safety politics and charities, but I don't have proof.

Have you heard of comparative advantage? Even if the US is better than Nowhereville at making literally everything, it still makes sense for Nowhereville to make whatever it can make with the lowest opportunity cost.

I'm smarter than AI in my area of expertise, or in any area I have time to learn thoroughly. But I can't learn everything. AI is a better generalist than I am.

Or maybe you're right. Technology never improves productivity. We ought to go back to assembly language written on clay tablets, everything's been downhill since then.

But why should I work harder than necessary to do the same job? Why wouldn't I want to use the best tools available?

I think your ideal AI therapist doesn't exist and may never exist. Given current models, I have a hard boundary where I will not rely on AIs for therapy or companionship. There are just too many stories of AI psychosis, and it's too easy to see myself becoming dependent on them.