... why? The closer I can approximate my imagined output (in a fixed time) the more value I see in it. The tool provides the added value.
We have better cameras than 30 years ago. Better pictures. It's easier to make a better photo in the same amount of time. I would be happier if my old blurry photos would be better.
Value is relative, of course, that's why exchange/trade works, right? And the same applies here too, with the added complications of explicitly "unknowable price", after all I don't know apriori how much value my friend will assign to the card!
In general there are many situations that map closer to your understanding than mine, but I think you are dismissing also a lot of perfectly valid ones where your model simply doesn't apply.
For example if said friend values effort, but "apparent concept vs. actual results fidelity" is not part of effort for them.
Yet still we don't know if they value effort as in time spent (because if they value time spent then it's the same value in both of my scenarios) or if they value some "visible handcraftedness" (effort to produce something that I am known to be very amateur at). And even then the question arises, isn't picking the best tool for the job itself effort?
Of course if this friend simply abbors GenAI shit then they will think it's "low effort" even if I put hours and hours into it (that I wouldn't have put into a traditional image manipulation software, because there I realized soon that I would need months of learning, etc.)
This was sarcasm. That system would never happen. If birthday card requires no effort it is worse than nothing, literal noise.
> So by spending the same 20 minutes fiddling with some kind of graphics if the outcome becomes 10x better then I see that as an advantage. (That said I haven't tried this.)
Feels like you misunderstood. It is not "10x better" or "advantage" because literally the easier it was for you the less it is valuable.