I'm a similarly semi professional photographer, and I have to agree. Most photos are stored for decades just to never be looked at again. Sure it might be interesting to retrieve a picture of that random piece of furniture or that car one future day, but seriously how many photos of their dog will people retrieve from storage?

I'm taking pictures everywhere. At the supermarket, on the road, in the kitchen, it's more than words. All these photos are super ephemeral, they will literally expire within 30 minutes. I think it is actually correct to store low resolution copies only, as they are just enough to trigger my own memory. I would gain nothing from a RAW copy of that photo. I would lose nothing from deleting them from the archive, but it's a hassle.

My non-professional photo library is at around 50 GByte, excluding astrophotography projects and photogrammetry runs. It's a really handy size for backups, and it indexes quickly with whatever service. I'm using Google Photos as a dumping ground, but PhotoPrism also indexes quickly.

I'll also note that geotags and a correct clock matter much more for archiving than high dynamic range and raw file formats. "Real cameras" suck for easy archiving. I want to zoom into a map of places I've been, and GPS is way too flimsy to be reliable on my Canon gear.