I say that most things (I’d say all, but I’ll inb4 potential objections) have a “cutoff” point after which specialized guidance is needed. Since this specialized guidance means specialized knowledge (time, effort and money), it makes sense for the people offering that guidance to get paid.
In general, I don’t agree with the “enlightened people ought to pass on knowledge for free” (big discussion for another time); this isn’t to say I don’t deeply appreciate people who offer free teaching (I enjoy passing on what I know-NOT GO OBV- to other people just because it feels nice) or that I think a pricetag should be on everything, but I do not object to the direct relation of paying to get better, when aiming for excellence.
I think (my personal opinion, don’t ask me for stats) there is a specific subset, not the majority, of people who view Go the way that the AI approaches it, meaning “make all the variations and find the best move, the end goal is to solve this thing”. There’s always some personal style in there, and only studying with the bots seems to me like parroting at school, but not really learning, expanding the player’s horizons and all those lofty things mentioned when we talk about education.
I would say availability to other stronger players and their guidance, exchange of opinions/ styles, tsumego and related apps, previously scarce Go books (all because of leaps in technology), have affected expenditure on teaching much more than the bots.