Not really - at least at current goals, population size, etc -, even with the very high energy expenditure of, say, LOTS of AI hardware to run the "Skynet" we'r

Not really - at least at current goals, population size, etc -, even with the very high energy expenditure of, say, LOTS of AI hardware to run the "Skynet" we're driving ourselves into, we're talking the order of magnitude of 30TWh (human generation today per Wikipedia). Imagining a future: with a ~3% growth, so let's say fusion is deployed and everything is electric in the next few years (not happening that fast though), with AI data-centers everywhere so individual-level AI runs (say "Her"'s movie personal OS-level stuff) per human and we reach the out-of-my-buttocks figure of 500 TWh/year in 10 years time, which is crazy shit ... well, that would not "boil the world"! The Sun delivers ~170,000 TWh per year. So 500 TWh still would not be that significant, and within the Sun's yearly delivery fluctuations. The problem with energy generation today is that it's releasing gases, and these gases are disrupting the planet’s energy balance - especially how Earth gets rid of the massive energy it receives from the Sun. We do need to restore the balance between what comes in and what goes back out - fusion can help tackle that problem specifically, so it's beneficial overall even if it eventually adds a fractional percentage to the overall planetary energy bill. I picture that fusion would be a complementary source, not the only one, and, once/if deployed, would help close some of key the loopholes that prevent solar (and other renewables) from being deployed 100%.