The way that cloud businesses work, you sell the servers for about as cheap as you possibly can do. Instance prices are all a race to the bottom among the providers, because servers are largely commodity hardware that's easy to get from any number of providers, and it's one of the first prices customers see, and often plays a big role in their choice of provider.
So that's not where you make your profits. So you're right, lots of revenue, but crucially, there is no real profit. There never will be. That makes it a boring product, not worth focusing a lot on from a marketing perspective etc. Same tends to go for all of what you might think of as the basic building blocks of the cloud. e.g. object storage prices are often really close to what it actually costs to provide the service.
You make your profits on what you sell that runs on the cloud. All those additional things like databases, streaming services, kubernetes bits, functions etc. Those are where you make your actual profits. GenAI is a big potential profit driver for AWS, so that's where they're pushing. A couple of years ago it was "$foo, but on Kubernetes". Before that it was "$foo, but Serverless". They're just pushing where the profit and interest is, and pretty much always have done.
sort of side-note: Gartner's evaluation of cloud providers got really absurd around kubernetes stuff. Because one cloud would do it, you'd miss out on points if you didn't also add it, even if being on kubernetes literally added zero benefit, or arguably was worse. Same for "Serverless". It didn't matter if customers were actually using it, or wanted it, if AWS/Azure/GCP launched it, you'd better have it too.