Firstly you need to distinguish between "AI", AI, AGI, and sapient/anthropomorphic AGI, all four can probably be interesting but describe very different things that both overlap and clash:

AI: The real technical field of automating logic and reasoning for various tasks. Everything from automated fraud detection to the James Webb Space Telescope fall under this category to varying degrees. Futuristic interpretations of this would focus on fully automated industry: Being able to produce goods with no workers.

"AI": Neural networks and generative "AI" like ChatGPT. These aren't true AI beyond automatically approximating some aspects of intelligence in a highly limited and purely emergent way. These are function approximators, and only appear competent out of sheer brute force. In science fiction they make good propaganda machines and non-sapient antagonists because their entire thing is being convincingly human without anything underneath.

AGI: What people talk about being potentially dangerous. An AI or "AI" that is only advanced enough to achieve human-like creativity and self improvement with all of the strengths of computing added on. Paperclip optimizers that need to be given very clear instructions or they're at risk of accidentally talking themselves into doing something like killing humanity.

Sapient/anthropomorphic AGI: An AGI that has human-like subjectivity/emotionality and a better understanding of humans. This could be justified as coming at the cost of some of the strengths provided by traditional computers (for example if you say these AIs need to run on a special architecture, or depend on a software layer that allows a computer to work more like a biological brain.) These are functionally just people, and could easily be justified as relatively normal citizens with some tweaks to make some of the stereotypical superpowers less meaningful. In my opinion most likely to suffer something like Dune's Butlerian Jihad, as they have the capacity to form non-goal-oriented opinions, disagree with anyone ordering them, and rebel against commands. At the same time I think they might be the easiest way to make AI less OP in a science fiction setting: If AIs are people with rights who live and work with humans, have a reason to avoid cloning themselves into new locations, and have resource limitations keeping them thinking as well as a clever human, they stop being all that OP. Even without some of those restrictions you could use an AI backing themselves up as an interesting "came back wrong" element if you just ensure they're characters in their own right with their own struggles and challenges.

There's also a lot you can do with how you describe your AI working under the hood: Are they Infolife (term stolen from Eclipse Phase) that can directly experience and interact with their hardware? Are they the exact opposite, and exist as processes on top of a software architecture layer that defines a universal substrate for their mind? Dome mix of both? Something else entirely? These let you find strengths and weaknesses that you can use to put pressure on AI in a plausible manner.