An AI enthusiast wakes up to a new tool and feels excitement. An AI skeptic wakes up to the same news and feels on guard. Both are reasonable responses to a fast-changing technology. This post focuses on the second one, because wariness that never resolves can turn into a steady background load. [OPINION]
Research on anxiety gives a useful way to think about this. A review of the neurobiology of anxiety argues that uncertainty about a possible future threat disrupts our ability to avoid that threat or limit its impact, and that this is central to how anxiety arises [1]. That review is about anxiety in general, not about attitudes toward AI. But AI is full of open questions, and the skeptic’s pattern is easy to mistake for caution when it may be closer to anticipation. The enthusiast’s excitement has a natural stopping point. The skeptic’s vigilance doesn’t. There’s always one more article to read, one more risk to weigh, one more reason to resist. [OPINION]
Here’s the part worth sitting with: if that pattern is running, the skeptic may need self-regulation more than the enthusiast does. The enthusiast engages and moves on. The skeptic engages (or avoids engaging) and may feel keyed up either way. [OPINION]
This is where a body-based practice becomes relevant, not as wellness fluff but as a matter of control over your own reactions. One influential model links the regulation of attention and emotion to the autonomic nervous system, and proposes that the sympathetic activation seen in anxiety disorders may reflect faulty inhibition [2]. It’s a theoretical model, and it doesn’t test AI skepticism or any practice described here. It does give a reason to treat self-regulation as a skill worth building. For the skeptic, being in control isn’t about avoiding AI. It’s about building enough capacity to regulate yourself so you can engage with AI without being thrown off by it. The goal isn’t to become an enthusiast. It’s to become someone who can choose their response.
The specific practice here is conscious disengagement – deliberately engaging with an AI tool briefly, then consciously stepping away and noticing that transition. The sequence goes: engage, notice any activation, disengage, notice it settle, repeat. The logic is borrowed from exposure therapy, which is an effective approach for treating anxiety disorders and which works partly by letting people learn that a feared outcome doesn’t happen [3]. That review covers clinical anxiety, not everyday AI use, so treat this sequence as an informal experiment rather than a proven method. Any activation is a cue to regulate, not a signal to flee. [OPINION]
Another useful way to think about it: AI as environment, not predator. The skeptic may be treating AI like a predator to be scanned for and avoided. The alternative is to treat it like weather – a feature of your environment you have to navigate, not something to fear. You don’t need to like the rain to walk in it without panicking. You need a coat. For the skeptic, that coat is the ability to regulate yourself. [OPINION]
One important caveat: not all skepticism is a problem. Being discerning is a legitimate mental skill. An AI skeptic’s wariness might reflect real risks the enthusiast is overlooking. The point isn’t to get rid of skepticism, but to keep it from becoming a constant load on your attention and mood. The goal is regulated skepticism – the ability to evaluate AI critically without being thrown off balance by it. If worry about AI feels unmanageable or is interfering with sleep or daily life, that’s a good reason to talk with a clinician.
A practice that suits everyone is a few slow breaths before, during, and after using AI. A systematic review of slow-breathing techniques found they promote autonomic changes, including higher heart rate variability, and were linked to greater comfort and relaxation and to lower arousal and anxiety symptoms [4]. The review included only 15 studies and tested slow breathing in general, not breathing around AI use. It matters most for the skeptic, because their baseline may already be closer to the tipping point. [OPINION]
The key distinction is avoidance versus regulation. Avoidance looks like protection, but it never gives you a chance to find out that engaging was fine. Regulation looks like engagement with a safety net – you engage briefly, notice the activation, and consciously calm yourself before it builds. Over time, the hope is that this helps you tell a real threat from an anticipated one. That distinction is the foundation of staying in control of yourself in a world saturated with AI. [OPINION]
References
↑︎ Grupe DW, Nitschke JB. Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(7):488-501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3524
↑︎ Thayer JF, Lane RD. A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. J Affect Disord. 2000;61(3):201-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0327(00)00338-4
↑︎ Craske MG, Treanor M, Conway CC, Zbozinek T, Vervliet B. Maximizing exposure therapy: an inhibitory learning approach. Behav Res Ther. 2014;58:10-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.04.006
↑︎ Zaccaro A, Piarulli A, Laurino M, et al. How breath-control can change your life: a systematic review on psycho-physiological correlates of slow breathing. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00353
Kurt Greiner
Kurt is a digital strategist and IT professional blending emerging technology with practical application to help businesses and individuals streamline their digital presence. His current work focuses on the intersection of intentional living and technological resilience, exploring how individuals can leverage modern tools to navigate the second half of life with purpose.
Leave a Reply