-
That's not really how this works. 'Literally' really still means the same, and it will only be used the way you complain about as long as it does - ironically, it's the people moaning about its hyperbolic use that have made this a recognised 'issue' and lead to people believing it has actually changed meaning. When this word really no longer means 'in a literal sense', it will have outlived its usefulness to express hyperbole and people will move on to another word.
Or more succinctly - using 'literally' to create a hyperbolic statement does not mean that it now also means 'figuratively': it only works because it doesn't. There is a very big difference between saying "literally blown away" and "figuratively blown away".
SwissChap-
I think part of the beef with new uses for words like this is that it degrades the original meaning, despite the fact that the original meaning is still useful. I think most people would not have an issue with "cool" meaning excellent/trendy etc. because the context would not generally let people confuse it with the original meaning of "a bit cold"; however, when you repurpose words in a similar function to their original meaning you risk impoverishing the language by losing the old meaning. For example, "disinterested" is a really useful word to describe what a judge or referee should be i.e., unbiased (roughly), but it's misused so often now (when people actually mean "uninterested") that fewer and fewer people know that really useful original meaning.
The fact that this process inevitably carries on, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to counter it.
ffm
I grudgingly accept that this is becoming acceptable usage but it grates in a way that other words don't, because it renders the old usage useless - if "literally" can also mean figuratively, then we no longer have a word that means (old usage) literally. What do you say when you want to mean (with no doubt) actually what you're expressly said?