You've added an additional condition to the if expression from what you quoted above, which would require substantiation for the conclusion to follow.
They certainly work /cheaper/ and /faster/ than alternatives, /better/ is an open question (and, at least in my experience so far, not even close to settled). However, companies are much more strongly incentivized to lower costs than to increase beneficial outputs (especially so in this case since human capital has become one of the most expensive costs for companies specifically /because/ it has been so hard to replace in “intellectual/creative” fields). The result is that they may (are?) replace human workers with sub-par alternatives as a cost-cutting measure.
I can imagine a (probably not steel, but hopefully more wood than straw) neoliberal capitalist might reply with something like “but if the result is subpar, then the market will respond by purchasing from alternative providers; and it will self-correct.” Unfortunately, if the entire market (read: a sufficiently large portion of the options in a given market segment) takes such actions together, the consumer has no choice, and the invisible hand shrugs as best it can.
All the best,
-HG