For some people, conscientiousness requires an exertion of internal discipline and willpower which is treated as a cost. A technological supervisor which externally compels beneficial behavior chosen in a non-tempted period of per-commitment is like a labor-reduction innovation that reduces time-inconsistency.

On the other hand, some people are born to be either conscientious or impulsive. Technology could help to reduce the natural genetic inequality / privilege / advantage that the abstemious and driven have enjoyed the indulgent and indolent.

On the other foot, there is risk-compensation and the Peltzman effect. If people adjust their behaviors to always try to hit their utility-curve set-point / sweet-spot for a certain amount of pleasure and risk, then technological assistance will be somewhat self-neutralizing as with safety regulations.

On the final foot, some of conscientiousness is a trained and perishable skill, so like human capital with rapid depreciation. When you have recourse to google translate on your smartphone, you don’t have to exercise a foreign language as much or as intensively, and even ‘immersion’ is ineffective. To the extent we can develop character and cultivate a love of rigor and self-mastery in an individual such that they work to maintain their own conscientiousness in a highly effective state, then ubiquitous technological assistants only mean that we will live in a society utterly dependent on those innovations for even ‘normal’ amounts of behavioral regulation. Take away the innovations for a moment and you’re left with some very maladjusted humans, like asking modern teens to do without electronics for an extended period.