I understand this thread has really gotten off topic from the original, but I think it's a good discussion nevertheless. I think the criticisms we often hear about AMP tend to be more principle-based/philosophical in nature.

Yes, the overall user experience is better. It's not that the experience is bad, it's more about the means they're using to reach those ends.

I see AMP as a set of training wheels that Google was able to get publishers to adopt. All the tools were available for publishers and their developers to make performant/clean sites to begin with, they just chose not to do so. AMP is basically a standardized form of "the way they should have built their site in the first place".

My other issue with AMP is that it makes companies focus on performance for mobile, but not for desktop. Why not build a quality, high-performance site for all platforms?

At the end of the day, is AMP a net positive? Maybe, I'm willing to consider the end result, but I don't think it's a problem for us to explore and criticize the means or the reality that necessitated AMP's existence.