This is true for pretty much any asset though. If I put effort into maintaining my car (which I use), the expectation is that it will last longer, provide me the benefit of using a well-maintained vehicle, and maybe sell for some portion of its original value when I eventually swap it out. I certainly don't expect my Toyota to appreciate in value by 1000% just because I didn't let it rust out.

The only people for whom it makes sense to define "great" as "makes money" are the people who produce and sell said product.

Similarly, most people don't put much stock in the salesmen of a product describing their own product as great.

Stop debasing all of quality to profitability.

I think most people would in fact prefer an artisanal chair if not for the price, not just "especially" accounting for price. Not a good comparison here though, because most products are not cheaper to the consumer due to AI - only cheaper (in theory) to the provider.

Bingo. They weren't paying for gmail before, and they still aren't paying for it now that it's more annoying than it used to be.

I suspect that, in many cases, AI features actually make a product more expensive for the operator. Imagine how much of doordash's money you could burn by telling its chatbot that the only way for you to figure out where the driver left your order is to create a todo app in React.