Sure! I agree with the comment's point as I understand it, but I don't think that point is counter to what the linked article means to convey. I think the article's intended point is that, for most people in rich countries, reducing the amount of harm they are complicit in by doing basic life functions (eating, seeking shelter, clothing themselves) is pretty hard and has significant diminishing returns on increasing effort. Choosing not to use AI is easier, almost trivial for most people, and therefore should be an obvious choice.