[Ukv]

> A professional who pays 20€/month likely believes that the AI product provides them with roughly 20€ each month in productivity gains, or else [...] they would pay more for a bigger subscription

Unless I'm misunderstanding, shouldn't someone rational want to pay where (value - cost) is highest, opposed to increasing cost to the point where it equals value (which has diminishing returns)?

A $40 subscription creating $1000 worth of value would be preferred over a $200 subscription creating $1100 of value, for instance, and both preferred over a $1200 subscription creating $1200 of value.

[concats]

True! (value - cost) would be better.

I was more so limiting myself to the simpler heuristic where people only pay roughly what they personally think something is worth, and not significantly more/less regardless of the options. But of course, as you've pointed out, in real life the options available really do matter, and someone might decline a 200:1200 trade if there are even more lopsided options available. It does complicate the though experiment somewhat if you try to take this into account.