If you need to shoot and get the image to client/end-user ASAP, and you like what you're seeing/getting with JPG, then that's the way to go. I've read that sports photographers often do this. Otherwise...
Unless the in-camera JPG conversion benefits from data the camera has at capture time but doesn't stored in a RAW file (not sure what this data would be), RAW still seems the way to go:
* with RAW, you can convert to JPG later; this means you can take advantage of better algorithms when they come along
* RAW has 14-bits of data per channel (16,384 values) versus JPG's 8-bits (256 values); this gives much greater flexibility in editing; some have used this to fake HDR by taking a single image, creating copies of it, pushing/pulling the low/high ends of the copies, then reassemble them into a single HDR image