I feel bad for them. They're going to be the ones that lay in their death bed thinking "I wish I had allowed myself to have more fun".
Why do you get to decide what's wasteful and what's useful?
We have more energy than we could ever hope to use from the sun and from nuclear. The solution isn't telling people they're wasting precious energy that you would put to better use. Just build more nuclear reactors and more solar.
You're talking to more of a civilization-type who believes you have to use regulation and, if necessary, state violence to stop types of mining that kill habitats, because the technology certainly isn't going to up and decide to do that. It's the job of society to figure this stuff out, arrive at such positions and defend them. There are plenty of good reasons to defend the protection of habitats, even for purely self-interested pragmatic reasons.
I feel certain there will be great benefit, but not in the way AI hypesters expect there to be.
We should strive to use and produce orders of magnitude more (clean) energy.
Not the first time this character has popped up here on HN.
"I write full-time and try to convince people of the danger of AI and advanced technology."