Your AI Anxiety Is Being Harvested

marsbitPublished on 2026-03-10Last updated on 2026-03-10

Abstract

The article critiques the excessive hype and anxiety surrounding AI, arguing that much of the online discourse is a form of fear-based marketing designed to harvest attention and engagement. It points out that blindly copying others' AI setups—like popular coding configurations—is ineffective because these are tailored to specific needs and contexts, not universal solutions. The author warns against over-reliance on AI, noting that it can erode independent thinking and core human skills like judgment, creativity, and time management. Citing data from Fortune, Goldman Sachs, and academic studies, the article reveals that many companies report no actual productivity gains from AI adoption; instead, it often intensifies workloads and leads to burnout. The key takeaway is to use AI strategically for repetitive tasks while preserving human strengths for critical thinking and decision-making. True success lies not in using AI everywhere, but in knowing when not to use it.

Author: jiayi Jiayi

AI is exploding with traffic on X, and my X feed sends me a new type of content every day—

Someone posts a screenshot of an AI tool setup, captioning it "This system increased my efficiency 10x." The comments immediately flood with "Installed," "So powerful," "Will be left behind if I don't learn this."

Others share their AI workflows, telling you that copying their method will earn you X amount per month.

And then? After you install it, you're still you.

For someone who doesn't know how to trade, AI effectively increases your efficiency at losing money. Your problem was never a lack of tools.

I don't deny that AI is the biggest variable of our era. But I want to state a few facts that people aren't keen to hear.

1. 80% of AI content on X is essentially fear-mongering

"You're finished if you don't use AI"—this statement itself is a harvesting tactic.

Create anxiety → Provide a solution → Gain traffic.

This is a very mature monetization chain.

If you look closely, those shouting the loudest about the "AI revolution" aren't selling AI capability,they are selling your panic. What they need most is not for you to actually learn AI, but for you to remain perpetually anxious, keep following them, and keep sharing their content.

It's the same logic as the crypto world yelling "get on board now or it's too late," just with a new skin.

Recently, an AI post on X saying "Something Big Is Happening" got70 million impressions. However, this post deliberately omitted crucial context, keeping only the parts most likely to induce panic.

Panic sells attention, not truth.

2. Copying someone else's AI strategy with one click is the dumbest way to learn

Tailoring AI ultimately depends on individual cognition.

Recently, a 50K star Claude Code configuration repository went viral. Many reposted saying "install it now."

I studied it carefully—

It's a development workflow configuration designed for professional programmers: TDD test-driven, code review Agent, security scanning, 17 dedicated sub-Agents. Very impressive.

But it's designed for people who write code.

For example, if I, someone in marketing, install this setup, it would literally interfere with the operation of my own smart skills.

Everyone's work scenario, pain points, and thinking patterns are different. Someone else's AI configuration is the result of them stumbling through countless pitfalls to create something tailored for themselves.

With one click, you're not copying their ability, but a bunch of files you can't use.

More ironically, Claude Code's creator, Boris Cherny, said himself: his configuration is actually "surprisingly vanilla"—the default settings are sufficient, not much customization is needed.

But that kind of talk isn't exciting enough, so no one shares it.

3. AI's biggest trap: Not "you can't use it," but "you use it for everything"

I've seen people ask AI to plan their day: what to do, the priority of each task, the time allocation for each task.

This shocked me.

The allocation of one's own time and energy is a person's core competency.

What you need to do, what to do first, what's worth investing in, what should be abandoned—these judgments are based on your self-awareness, clarity of goals, and sense of opportunity cost.

This is not a decision an AI can make for you.

Because AI doesn't know you had insomnia last night so you're not in good form today, doesn't know you have an intuitive confidence in a certain project, doesn't know your relationship with a certain partner is微妙 (delicate) and needs priority handling recently.

Handing this over to AI is like letting someone who just met you 5 minutes ago plan your life.

The key distinction is whether AI enhances your thinking, or AI replaces your thinking. It's essentially my criterion for judging whether AI or the human is the fuel. After all, living brain cells can now run operational AI.

4. The data tells a brutal truth

Most companies that use AI see no productivity improvement.

This isn't me saying it.

Fortune reported in February this year: Thousands of CEOs admit AI has had no practical impact on employment and productivity.

Goldman Sachs latest research: No significant correlation between AI and productivity.

Tom's Hardware citing a survey of 6000 executives:Over 80% of companies report no productivity gains from AI.

Nobel laureate in economics Daron Acemoglu stated bluntly: AI is not improving productivity.

Harvard Business Review's headline in February was even more direct:

"AI Doesn't Reduce Work — It Intensifies It"

UC Berkeley research also warns: The effect AI is producing in the workplace is the opposite of what was expected—employees did become more productive, but the workload also skyrocketed, ultimately leading to burnout.

5. What you should truly be anxious about is not "I haven't learned to use AI yet"

But rather "I've already forgotten how to think for myself."

Independent thinking is the scarcest asset of this era.

AI can help you write 80-point content, but the leap from 80 to 100, only the human brain can accomplish. AI can help you gather information, but judging which information is important and how to combine it into unique insights—that's human work.

Research shows that in SAT writing tests, the group using AI assistance had the lowest brain activity, and their content was evaluated as "lacking originality and warmth."

Over-reliance on AI, especially among young people, can negatively impact brain development.

While you're training AI, you're also letting your own brain atrophy.

This isn't science fiction. It's a悲哀 (tragic) thing happening right now.

6. The right posture

Embrace change, learn to enhance cognition, and stay清醒 (clear-headed).

Know what things AI does better than you—

Repetitive tasks, data organization, format conversion, first draft generation. Hand these over to AI, no problem.

Also know what things you do better than AI—

Strategic judgment, relationship maintenance, creative intuition, value trade-offs, time management. These abilities require you to practice repeatedly, not outsource to a model.

Not every problem needs an AI solution.

Sometimes turning off all tools and thinking quietly for 10 minutes is more effective than opening 10 AI windows.

Don't let "AI anxiety" become your new shackles.

Those selling AI panic on X are profiting from your anxiety. Every time you share "you're finished if you don't learn AI," you're working for them for free.

The real winners of this AI wave are not those who use AI the most, but those who know when NOT to use AI.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main argument the author makes about AI content on social media platforms like X?

AThe author argues that 80% of AI content on platforms like X is essentially 'fear-mongering marketing,' a mature monetization chain that manufactures anxiety to capture attention and traffic, rather than providing genuine value or truth.

QAccording to the article, why is copying someone else's AI strategy or workflow a flawed approach?

AIt is flawed because AI strategies are highly personalized. Copying a configuration designed for a specific professional (e.g., a programmer) is ineffective for someone with a different role (e.g., a marketer), as it doesn't transfer the original user's cognitive framework and context, resulting in a collection of unusable files.

QWhat data and sources does the author cite to support the claim that AI has not improved productivity?

AThe author cites multiple sources: Fortune's report on CEOs admitting no real impact on jobs or productivity, a Goldman Sachs study finding no significant correlation, a Tom's Hardware survey of 6,000 executives where over 80% reported no productivity gains, and statements from Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu and a Harvard Business Review article titled 'AI Doesn't Reduce Work — It Intensifies It'.

QWhat is identified as the 'biggest trap' of using AI?

AThe biggest trap is not that 'you don't know how to use AI,' but that 'you use it for everything.' This leads to outsourcing core human competencies like strategic judgment, relationship management, creative intuition, and, most critically, the ability to manage one's own time and priorities, which AI cannot effectively do as it lacks personal context.

QWhat does the author propose as the 'correct posture' for engaging with AI?

AThe correct posture is to embrace change and learn to use AI for tasks it excels at (repetitive work, data sorting, draft generation) while maintaining清醒 (clarity) and consciously practicing and preserving the human capabilities that AI cannot replicate (strategic judgment, creativity, value-based decision-making). The true winners are those who know when NOT to use AI.

Related Reads

Investors Are Now Hunting for AI Projects on Bilibili and Xiaohongshu

Investors Turn to Bilibili and Xiaohongshu to Source AI Projects The AI hardware boom is in full swing in 2025, with a surge in smart wearables like AI glasses, rings, toys, and companion robots. This frenzy has investors scrambling, not just sifting through business plans, but actively hunting for promising "under-the-radar" projects on youth and tech-enthusiast content platforms like Bilibili and Xiaohongshu. The logic is straightforward: for consumer-facing AI hardware, genuine user demand and potential pitfalls are often revealed earlier in public discussions, comments, and critiques on these communities than in formal pitches. As one industry insider notes, these products must ultimately be tested and understood by real people. This shift highlights a crucial challenge in the sector: user education. The success of AI hardware depends on moving beyond mere efficiency gains to fulfilling higher-order needs like "unleashing personal creativity." Products must convince users they are natural, unobtrusive additions to daily life. Early hype, as seen with devices like the Rabbit R1, often fades if the product fails to clearly solve real-world problems, leading to high return rates and market rejection. The market is now entering a shakeout phase. 2026 is seen as a year of commercial validation. Some projects have already stalled or been canceled due to market resistance, lack of differentiation, or financial woes. However, the long-term opportunity remains vast, with forecasts predicting a multi-trillion dollar global AI hardware market by 2030. The competition is intensifying. With giants like OpenAI and Meta preparing their own hardware, and Chinese companies launching diverse AI-powered products, the battle for user attention, product excellence, and market understanding is just beginning. The core principle endures: in the AI era, it remains a user-sovereign market.

marsbit31m ago

Investors Are Now Hunting for AI Projects on Bilibili and Xiaohongshu

marsbit31m ago

"Agents' Last Exam", Claude Fable 5 Actually Loses to GPT 5.5

Surprisingly, in the newly released "Agents' Last Exam" (ALE) benchmark from UC Berkeley, GPT-5.5 has outperformed the recently launched and highly-regarded Claude Fable 5. ALE tests AI agents on their ability to perform real-world tasks across 55 professional domains—such as 3D modeling in Siemens NX, creating game scenes in Unreal Engine, and visual effects work in Adobe After Effects—by granting them full GUI and command-line access. In the core task completion rate ranking, GPT-5.5 configurations secured the top two spots (24.0% and 23.0%), while Claude Fable 5 with Claude Code came in third (22.0%). Notably, the highest pass rate was only 24%, and the most difficult "Last-Exam" tier saw most top models, including GPT-5.5 and Fable 5, scoring zero. The benchmark also revealed significant cost and efficiency gaps: Fable 5 spent over four times more money than GPT-5.5's most expensive configuration for a slightly lower score, and was much slower. ALE differs from previous knowledge-based benchmarks by evaluating practical "ability to do" rather than static knowledge retrieval. Its tasks are derived from real expert projects, automatically scored, and designed to prevent cheating through a rotating pool of private challenges. The results suggest that high performance on traditional benchmarks does not necessarily translate to proficiency in complex, open-ended real-world work. The study also notes that agents often fail by prematurely declaring tasks complete without proper verification, and that no single model excels uniformly across all diverse domains.

marsbit37m ago

"Agents' Last Exam", Claude Fable 5 Actually Loses to GPT 5.5

marsbit37m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of AI (AI) are presented below.

活动图片