I think it's a bad idea to use it without being extremely cautious. It seems to me like people are misinterpreting what Google said. As soon as something becomes easy, many people will use it and then the algorithm has to change in order to remove the lower quality stuff. If you used it wisely, but your site still has signatures that match the content that Google is trying to remove from the SERPs, your site might become collateral damage. Even if you don't notice a problem now, it might not be that way in the future.
Related example: Google also says "There's no such thing as a 'duplicate content penalty.'" but there are critically important nuances to what they are saying. You can't just throw duplicate content online and expect to have long-term success.
Google says things, but then it does whatever it needs to do to keep the SERPs in the condition that is most profitable for them, regardless of whatever they have previously announced. It isn't uncommon for them to backtrack on what they've said as they realize they need to change it. Examples: "page rank sculpting", nofollow.
I'll paste my other comment from a few days ago:
I interpret what Google said to mean that they don't oppose AI generation of content in principle for some situations. For example, news sites have already been using AI to generate news articles, and Google is planning on increasing the amount of AI content they create and monetize themselves. But I don't think it means that people can go out and start creating AI articles for their cookie cutter blogs full of software review listicles.
If someone has long-term goals for a site (as opposed to just dumping black-hat, filler content onto the Web knowing that the site might eventually get penalized), then I think they should be very cautious about relying on AI. There are going to be waves of people coming to forums like this over the next few years complaining "...but Google said we could do it", which I think isn't exactly correct.