I think it still makes some sense. For example, if you look at the process of software development like this:

  [business requirements] -> ... -> [deployed and working software]

Then it stands to reason that Ansible and Kubernetes are just two ways of getting to the same end result.

Where they differ, is the approaches that they take to achieving that result:

  Ansible: [run a playbook ahead of time] -> [the environment for your app will be set up] -> [you can deploy to it through Jenkins/GitLab/whatever] -> [your app will run, but Ansible will know almost nothing about it unless run]
  Kubernetes: [create a cluster ahead of time] -> [you'll be able to run any containers on it] -> [you can deploy to a registry through Jenkins/GitLab/whatever] -> [Kubernetes will make sure that your app remains running]

So essentially, i believe that many people have the stance, that they can probably just set up an environment for an application and forget about it (or at least not constantly monitor it), which is more in line with what Ansible provides, whereas Kubernetes is more suited to situations where it's impossible to have "stable software" (i.e. most business applications, since they don't have the quality of projects like the Linux kernel).

If you want fault tolerance, you have to do additional work with Ansible, like writing systemd services for restarts, manually setting up your load balancers and working on ensuring proper failover, as well as service discovery. And i'd reason that if something is hard to do, oftentimes it simply won't be done at all! Yet with Kubernetes, a lot of that comes out of the box (even though i think that it's often too complicated, K3s does seem sane, but personally Docker Swarm or Hashicorp Nomad hit the sweet spot of features vs complexity).