It is my experience that most of these business domain experts snore the moment you talk about anything related to the difficulties of creating software.
The best part, of course, is that this mostly works, most of the time, for most busineses.
Now, the same domain experts -who still cannot code- will do the exact same thing, but AI will make the spreadsheet more stable (actual data modelling), more resilient (backup infra), more powerful (connect from/to anything), more ergonomic (actual views/UI), and generally more easy to iterate upon (constructive yet adversarial approach to conflicting change requests).
Hallucinations sure make spreadsheets nice and stable.
From the view you describe, it seems AI just lets you experiment faster, when all you want to do is experiment. You find product market fit easier, you empower designers more, etc. Much easier to iterate and find easy wins from alternative designs - as long as your fundamentals work!
Only problem is that you are experimenting in public, so the massive wave of new AI generated features come to the public from everywhere at once. Hence the widespread backlash.
Not to mention, the core job function when you are experimenting is different from what defines a lot of hard technical progress: creating new technologies, or foundational work that others build on, is naturally harder and slower than building e.g. CRUD services on top of an existing stack. Deep domain expertise matters for selling, deep programming expertise matters for stability. I don't know, curious where the line will end up getting drawn.
There’s a requisite curiosity necessary to cross the discomfort boundary into how the sausage is made.