I'm not sure if i'd want software I use to actually wear down so it breaks like a fan belt, as much as evolve as my understanding of the system does.
...In most cases a designer expects a user to adapt to the object. In agathonic design, the object changes and adapts to the user. Of course, the user is probably also adapting to the object. We now have the possibility of both user and object adapting to each other, creating a system with a higher level of functionality. (From Design that improves with use (PDF) by Michael Helms, in Ambidextrous Magazine.)
What if a system's response was to truly personalise the UI based on how, why and when people use various workflows? Would that be useful? Is it a good way to release complexity as it's required? I think so.
(And, i'm not just talking about providing useful blank slates, although they are really great for introducing people to how the site might look to them after a certain level of participation. I'm not sure how you can design blank slates with enough variety to indicate what *different* avenues of participation might look like.)
(Turns out Agathon was a tragic Athenian.)