Dependency is the product, not the risk

This isn't a conspiracy theory.

It's the most obvious economic incentive in the industry — and no one is talking about it openly.

The more opaque the system delivered to the customer, the higher the switching cost. The higher the switching cost, the higher the retention. The higher the retention, the higher the vendor's valuation.

The logic is simple: if you don't understand what was built, you can't leave.

And there's something more serious than the technical risk: dependency without understanding isn't a flaw in your AI project. It's the core product of whoever sold you the project.

The entire industry is discussing internal governance, responsible-use frameworks, and corporate AI policies.

No one is discussing the conflict of interest written right into the contract.

The vendor isn't the one who's going to warn you about this. It's not in their interest.

That's why the right question to ask before any project isn't 'which tool should we use?' It's: 'who understands this system besides the vendor?' and 'what is our real exit cost two years from now?'

A company that hires AI without building internal capacity to understand it is signing a long-term contract with someone whose business depends on you never wanting to cancel.

Save this post if you're in the middle of an AI vendor decision — and tell me in the comments: did the company that sold you the project care about making you independent or about making you a customer?