As artificial intelligence reshapes the tech industry, many workers struggle with difficult emotions about their future. A developer and company owner writing on August 24, 2026, argues that anger—while tempting—is often counterproductive, and that anxiety and curiosity are more useful responses to technological disruption.
The central tension, according to the post, is that anger requires a target. It transforms uncertainty into a narrative with a villain, which can feel more actionable than acknowledging genuine confusion about what comes next. Yet this emotional shortcut often misdirects blame. “Your engineering manager or leadership team might themselves feel uncertain about their future and just try to bolster their own confidence by projecting clarity and certainty,” the author notes.
Anxiety, by contrast, does not require someone to blame. The author finds it reasonable to feel anxious about an uncertain future—questions like whether decades-old professional skills will remain relevant, or what kind of workplace their children will inherit. This discomfort, while uncomfortable, can be more intellectually honest than manufactured outrage.
The author distinguishes between anxiety and anger as emotional states with different productive potential. Anxiety can lead to curiosity, which opens the door to experimentation and learning. “We have access to magic machines, and we can poke at them and see what happens.” The author observes that many AI gains are appearing not in corporate profit margins but in side projects shipped by individual engineers outside their day jobs—evidence that outcomes remain genuinely uncertain even for company leaders.
Ownership and leadership positions come with agency but not foresight, the author argues. Many executives publicly project confidence while privately expressing doubt, concerned about costs flowing to large AI labs and risks to their data and market position. This uncertainty affects everyone, from engineers to founders.
The author acknowledges that real harms and beneficiaries will eventually emerge. Concerns about societal impact, climate implications, and geopolitical dependencies (particularly Europe’s growing reliance on other countries for AI capability) are legitimate. But the author urges workers to remain curious enough to understand the changes underway and to experiment with new tools before deciding where resistance is warranted.
“I can only urge anyone who feels anger and looks for a villain right to instead remain curious instead,” the author concludes, describing a personal oscillation between excitement and groundlessness as fundamental skills and assumptions shift rapidly.
Key facts
- The author agrees that being angry at work rarely improves situations and often harms colleagues
- Anxiety about AI’s impact does not require identifying a villain, unlike anger
- Individual engineers are shipping more side projects outside work hours, suggesting uncertain outcomes even for leadership
- Company leaders often express private doubt while projecting public confidence about AI strategy
- The author simultaneously feels excitement and uncertainty about the future of programming