I don't mean to be dismissive and crappy right out of the gate with that question, I'm merely drawing on my experience with AI and the broader trends I see emerging: AI is leveraged when you need knowledge products for the sake of having products, not when they're particularly for something. I've noticed a very strange phenomenon where middle managers will generate long, meandering report emails to communicate what is, frankly, not complicated or terribly deep information, and send them to other people, who then paradoxically use AI to summarize those emails, likely into something quite similar to what was prompted to be generated in the first place.
I've also noticed it being leveraged heavily in spaces where a product existing, like a news release, article, social media post, etc. is in itself the point, and the quality of it is a highly secondary notion.
This has led me to conclude that AI is best leveraged in such cases where nobody including the creator of a given thing really... cares much what the thing is, if it's good, or does it's job well? It exists because it should exist and it's existence performs the function far more than anything to do with the actual thing that exists.
And in my organization at least, our "cultural opinion" on such things would be... well if nobody cares what it says, and nobody is actually reading it... then why the hell are we generating it and then summarizing it? Just skip the whole damn thing and send a short, list email of what needs communicating and be done.