AI/ML barrier to entry is far simpler and vastly user friendly compared to crypto. Instant value return or gratification from ML products (GTPs and rest) is far more mainstream friendly.
Another view is the "loss" factor. Nobody, thus far, has has had their funds stolen or lost using ML products. I understand content creators and those who, unwillingly, contributed knowledge to learning systems did get circumvented but i'm talking about users/customers. Compare that to the negative stigma of crypto frauds and stereotypical association to illegal transactions.
Apples vs. rotten oranges in my opinion!
Crypto's sole usefulness remains in providing money transfers/liquidity in parts of the world where the local systems are failing or off-limits to the users.
Personally I don't partake - but they get a value in it, I guess. Who am I to judge?
The thing about gambling is it's a zero sum game. It doesn't enable any "real" productivity, it's just passing money around (with skimming off the top).
ML/AI isn't necessarily like that, it can be actually useful. Nevermind chatbots, we've already see how "AI" is useful in products for the last decade (e.g. google search results and extracting structured data out of emails, just to name a couple).
The only similarity is the hype/confusion cycle. Lots of crypto people got rich because they were in the right place at the right time, and they want to be there with the chatbot wave next.
The fact that AI/ML can be judged on real utility will limit some of this, and I think these crypto people will be in for a rude awakening if they think they can replicate their success here. With crypto the "game" of gambling / speculating meant that there was a lot of demand for ongoing endeavors, but once people realize that low effort ChatGPT reskins don't deliver anything tangible it'll be pretty obvious the emperor has no clothes.
You can't buy/trade ChatGPT prompts, after all - unless, perhaps, you were to create prompt NFTs?