judging by how big corpos operate things most of that sub money probably will end up in the company account, not the creators.

Agreed. Suffice to see the valuation of those corps. It's not the tooth fairy that gave them all their coins ;)

That said, it is YT that host the gazilion of disk space required to store the videos, it is them who manage the website and all our accounts and payments, it is them who deal with comments and moderation, it is them that finds advertisers for creators, and it is them that provide everything else I'm not even aware of. Do they dot it perfectly? Nope ;) But they do it and they too should be compensated for that. And it certainly not free: disk space cost real money, as people's salaries, even for Google. COudl they share it more generously? I'm willing to bet yes. But it's up to the creators, not to me the viewer (I would view them on any other platform they chose).

Wouldn’t you say that using an adblock and supporting creators directly (hot take here since you could want to support 50 people), be a more reasonable and better approach?

Better, I don't think so: it's the exact same money that is spend in a way or in another. It woudl also ends up costing me more. Which I probably would not agree with.

Reasonable? Well, it can. It depends your priority. Mine, as a viewer is not to have to spend too much of my free time in managing subs and payments. What I want on YT is to watch stuff and have a good time, not turn that into another job of mine (or then I should get paid, like for any job ;)

To be clear, if I had to micro-manage every single creator I like to watch, I would watch... a lot less of them. A lot. I can only think about two, maybe three.

And that would not be good thing for either the other creators and for Google/YT. As a publicly traded company, Google, needs to be perceived as successful (aka, having a lot of views at every single second) and creators themselves, they need the views in order to, well, become popular. No view, no popularity (no popularity, no sponsors). Note that I did not say they need 'Premium/paid views' or 'ad-supported views'. They need all the views they can get, even the ones behind ad-blockers. Ever wondered why YT doesn't punish users of ad-blockers by not counting their views as legit views? ;)

Ads are fine,

Not by me. I think they are not. I consider ads (and the constant profiling that comes along) a major threat to our society (very personal opinion, but mine nonetheless).

That's why I'm happy to pay to skip them (while still using an ad-blocker and multiple browsers, to make sure tracking is really screwed). That's also why I pay for my search engine (kagi.com: zero ads, zero tracking), that's why I have not owned a TV set since the very early 00s (when TV ads become so prevalent in my country, France): since there was no way to skip ads on TV, I stopped watching TV (I value my time, and my peace of mind, much more than any series or show... and then I can now watch them ad-free on Netflix or anywhere else if I really want, which is not that often). That's also why I use iOS and not stock android (less tracking less ads, less Google), that's why I also use a GNU/Linux Debian laptop and a Mac desktop. And that's why I will never use a Microsoft product ever again: I stopped using Microsoft the day they decided to introduce ads in their OS, making it obvious to anyone all the tracking that was going on. I refuse that. Ads in the OS, ffs...

but while the company is being obnoxiously intrusive and predatory towards Its customers, it’s hard to just pay to not be inconvenienced.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand that sentence (I try my best to get better but my English is still so limited). Would you mind explaining it otherwise?