Sure?
DLSS 1.0 was pretty bad - but showed the promise of intelligent upscaling.
DLSS 2.0 has more or less delivered on that promise. My opinion, of course; I find DLSS 2.0 to be more than close enough to justify any perceived degradation in visuals. Granted I have no problem using FSR / FSR 2.0 where exclusively available, whether I'm gaming on an AMD GPU or that's just what the game in question supports.
DLSS 3.0 is 'frame doubling'. This works great for pre-recorded media (if you like the effect itself), but for real-time applications it means that there's a definite insertion of additional input latency attached with usage. So, for DLSS 3.0 to even be useful in a particular situation, performance already has to be high enough for real-time interaction. Whereas DLSS 2.0 taking you from an arbitrary 20FPS to 35FPS, or 60FPS to 90FPS and so on can significantly impact the quality of the experience, DLSS 3.0 (that is, the 'frame generation' part of it) needs you to be running at 60FPS+ in the first place.
And there's a place for that - many games that aren't as user-response dependent can benefit, thinking anything turn-based or perhaps RPG and adventure-style games. Some simulators as well.
But for anything where optimizing for input latency is already a concern, DLSS 3.0 is a non-starter.
No one should be! But it's still the cheapest entry point for the level of technology Nvidia is bringing to the table.