Any one actor has finite cash flow (plus their cash-on-hand buffer). Directing cashflow towards inference necessarily directs it away from something else. Either these companies are spending less on something else, or they are returning less profit.
You can't analyse expenditure assuming income is constant, because all expenditure decisions will be made with a view to how they affect income.
If your argument is that a bunch of consumer-facing companies are collectively suddenly making trillions more in revenue due to adopting AI... well, I have a pretty nice bridge for sale here
In general, political discussion suffers a lot from far too much of it being simply "I am obviously right, you are an idiot and/or malicious if you believe the other guy". This is not a dig at you personally, look at any political discussion and you will see that 99% of it is like that. Our public sphere would be in better condition if more people pushed back on it. So no, I don't think anyone should accept "proof by ridicule/slur".