167
Just because it's 'the hot new thing' doesn't mean it's a fad or a bubble. It doesn't not mean it's those things, but....the internet was once the 'hot new thing' and it was both a bubble (completely overhyped at the time) and a real, tidal wave change to the way that people lived, worked, and played.
There are already several other outstanding comments, and I'm far from a prolific user of AI like some folks, but - it allows you to tap into some of the more impressive capabilities that computers have without knowing a programming language. The programming language is English, and if you can speak it or write it, AI can understand it and act on it. There are lots of edge cases, as others have mentioned below, where AI can come up with answers (by both the range and depth of its training data) where it's seemingly breaking new ground. It's not, of course - it's putting together data points and synthesizing an output - but even if mechanically it's 2 + 3 = 5, it's really damned impressive if you don't have the depth of training to know what 2 and 3 are.
Having said that, yes, there are some problematic components to AI (from my perspective, the source and composition of all that training data is the biggest one), and there are obviously use cases that are, if not problematic in and of themselves, at very least troubling. Using AI to generate child pornography would be one of the more obvious cases - it's not exactly illegal, and no one is being harmed, but is it ethical? And the more societal concerns as well - there are human beings in a capitalist system who have trained their whole lives to be artists and writers and those skills are already tragically undervalued for the most part - do we really want to incentivize their total extermination? Are we, as human beings, okay with outsourcing artistic creation to this mechanical turk (the concept, not the Amazon service), and whether we are or we aren't, what does it say about us as a species that we're considering it?
The biggest practical reasons to not get too swept up with AI is that it's limited in weird and not totally clearly understood ways. It 'hallucinates' data. Even when it doesn't make something up, the first time that you run up against the edges of its capabilities, or it suggests code that doesn't compile or an answer that is flat, provably wrong, or it says something crazy or incoherent or generates art that features humans with the wrong number of fingers or bodily horror or whatever....well then you realize that you should sort of treat AI like a brilliant but troubled and maybe drug addicted coworker. Man, there are some things that it is just spookily good at. But it needs a lot of oversight, because you can cross over from spookily good to what the fuck pretty quickly and completely without warning. 'Modern' AI is only different from previous AI systems (I remember chatting with Eliza in the primordial moments of the internet) because it maintains the illusion of knowing much, much better.
Baseless speculation: I think the first major legislation of AI models is going to be to require an understanding of the training data and 'not safe' uses - much like ingredient labels were a response to unethical food products and especially as cars grew in size, power, and complexity the government stepped in to regulate how, where, and why cars could be used, to protect users from themselves and also to protect everyone else from the users. There's also, at some point, I think, going to be some major paradigm shifting about training data - there's already rumblings, but the idea that data (including this post!) that was intended for consumption by other human beings at no charge could be consumed into an AI product and then commercialized on a grand scale, possibly even at the detriment of the person who created the data, is troubling.