And I thought you were pleased to see me.
Slightly more seriously, and delightfully pedantically, you don't. A supercomputer isn't a supercomputer because it does a lot of computations every second. It's the utility of the machine that makes it a supercomputer. Your phone can model entire weather systems or the intricacies of millisecond-by-millisecond fluid dynamics inside a nuclear explosion, but you choose to play Angry Birds on it, so it isn't a supercomputer. It's just a very, very fast, and immensely wasteful PC. You could do everything you do on your phone with a much less well-specced device. We all could.
Nah, I mostly read HN and take photos with it.
But — that in itself has been pretty society-changing (well, maybe not the part about reading HN). Literally every person, just about, has a reasonably good camera in their pocket capable of shooting video, that connects to the internet — and by the way, the quality of those images does actually relate to the thing being a supercomputer (thanks, computational photography). Would the George Floyd related protests have happened without someone's cameraphone taping cops killing him in cold blood? Definitely not: only cable news companies decided what to shoot and — equally critically — what to broadcast.
And on a more mundane note: ubiquitous internet-connected cameras certainly revolutionized how I pick restaurants for dinner.
Automated X replacing manual Y is usually good, IMO, even if the idea that it'll result in more leisure time is pretty much bunk.
Even on a personal level, say a car lets me do a trip in 30 minutes instead of 2 hours walking. I don't relax for an hour and a half. I go check more things off my todo list.
Isn't that good? You certainly could give yourself more leisure time — there's no capitalist overlord forcing you to do your own personal todo list — but since you have more time, you've decided to do more things to help yourself.