A patient said to me the other day, half-smiling but clearly unsettled: \u201cI think I\u2019ve got anxiety about AI.\u201d<\/p>\n
They weren\u2019t having a panic attack or describing clinical anxiety. What they were expressing was a persistent sense of unease that many of us are feeling right now.<\/p>\n
A sense that the world is changing very quickly, that the systems we live within are being redesigned around us and that most of us don\u2019t feel particularly consulted or prepared for a life increasingly immersed in artificial intelligence<\/a>\u00a0(AI).<\/p>\n If you\u2019re feeling that way, you\u2019re not alone. A recent survey shows that the\u00a0general public is more concerned about AI than AI experts<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 particularly around jobs and human connection \u2013 while both groups express strong concern about misinformation.<\/p>\n AI anxiety isn\u2019t a single fear. It\u2019s a cluster of related concerns that vary by a person\u2019s stage of life, technical literacy, work and values. However, many of these worries tend to fall into a few common themes.<\/p>\n Understandably, one of the biggest concerns is job disruption.<\/p>\n AI is increasingly capable of\u00a0performing tasks that were once the preserve of humans<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 drafting text, analysing data, writing code, summarising meetings, interpreting images, handling customer interactions and even helping me fix my barbecue with what appears to be impressive competence.<\/p>\n Whether AI will \u2018take our jobs\u2019 is a more complex question.<\/p>\n The\u00a0International Monetary Fund<\/a>\u00a0estimates that almost\u00a040 per cent of jobs globally will be affected by AI<\/a>, with advanced economies facing higher exposure because more work involves cognitive tasks.<\/p>\n While the\u00a0World Economic Forum\u2019s Future of Jobs Report 2025<\/em> projects substantial labour-market churn by 2030<\/a>, with 170 million jobs created and 92 million displaced, resulting in net growth but major transition pressures.<\/p>\n Although these projections suggest overall job growth, others suggests AI-driven job losses,\u00a0especially for young people<\/a>. Regardless, the lived experience for many people is often one of disruption \u2013 local, personal and immediate.<\/p>\n For many of us, work provides more than income. It provides identity, purpose and social connection. Anxiety arises not only from fear of unemployment, but from uncertainty about relevance and value in a world increasingly shaped by AI.<\/p>\n A second major concern is what might be called the \u2018Big Brother<\/a>\u2019 effect \u2013 the growing role of AI systems in informing, and sometimes making, decisions that affect people\u2019s lives.<\/p>\n These include hiring, credit, insurance, welfare compliance and even healthcare prioritisation.<\/p>\n The worry is not simply that AI systems may be wrong. It\u2019s that decisions may be opaque, difficult to challenge and poorly explained \u2013 effectively occurring inside a black box.<\/p>\n Although the\u00a0Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development\u2019s (OECD) AI Principles<\/a>\u00a0explicitly emphasise human agency and oversight, transparency and accountability as core requirements for trustworthy AI systems, global trends suggest that\u00a0guardrails are often weakened<\/a>\u00a0as companies and nations race for dominance in a competitive AI market.<\/p>\n AI has dramatically lowered the cost of producing highly realistic \u2013 but entirely false \u2013 content. While this can be entertaining at times, it becomes serious when convincing images, audio and video are used to influence people\u2019s decisions.<\/p>\n Deepfake technology<\/a> is now used for fraud, impersonation and misinformation. Recent reporting by\u00a0The Guardian<\/em>\u00a0described deepfake scams as occurring on an\u00a0\u201cindustrial scale\u201d<\/a>, with high-quality fake content accessible to non-experts.<\/p>\n In Australia, this concern has become concrete. ABC News\u00a0reported\u00a0deepfake advertisements impersonating a leading diabetes specialist<\/a>, promoting unproven supplements and discouraging evidence-based treatment \u2013 a clear public-health risk.<\/p>\n When people can no longer reliably distinguish authentic information from synthetic content, trust in institutions, expertise and online information degrades \u2013 and anxiety follows.<\/p>\n Privacy has been gradually eroding for years, and this is amplified by\u00a0AI\u2019s ability to analyse large volumes of personal data<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 including behavioural, biometric and location data \u2013 often without us fully understanding how that data is used.<\/p>\n Pew Research shows\u00a0persistent public concern about data misuse, impersonation and loss of privacy<\/a>\u00a0associated with AI systems.<\/p>\n This anxiety is not limited to government surveillance; it also reflects unease about corporate data practices, profiling, targeted persuasion and information asymmetries between people and institutions.<\/p>\n For most people, fears of an\u00a0AI apocalypse<\/a>\u00a0are not everyday concerns, but they surface during high-profile stories about AI behaving unpredictably or operating autonomously.<\/p>\n One recent example is Moltbook, a platform marketed as a social network for AI agents, which attracted widespread\u00a0commentary about some weird and disturbing interactions between AI systems<\/a>.<\/p>\n Reuters reported that\u00a0the platform had a major security vulnerability<\/a>\u00a0that exposed private messages, thousands of email addresses, and over a million credentials, highlighting basic governance and security failures.<\/p>\n These episodes often attract dystopian interpretations reminiscent of science-fiction narratives. But the more immediate risks tend to be practical rather than dramatic: poor security, weak oversight, unclear responsibility and premature deployment.<\/p>\n Another source of anxiety is the concentration of AI capability among a small number of firms and countries. Many people worry about a future in which a\u00a0handful of technology giants hold disproportionate power and wealth<\/a>.<\/p>\n The OECD has noted that\u00a0generative AI markets may exhibit a \u2018winner takes all or most\u2019 dynamic<\/a>, reinforcing market power and potentially increasing inequality.<\/p>\n When powerful technologies are perceived as unavoidable and foundational, people reasonably ask who benefits, who bears the risk and how accountability is maintained.<\/p>\n AI anxiety is\u00a0particularly evident in education<\/a>. The concern is not only academic misconduct, but whether assessment continues to measure understanding, reasoning and learning when high-quality outputs can be generated instantly.<\/p>\n A recent article in\u00a0The Australian\u00a0<\/em>reported\u00a0widespread student use of AI in higher education<\/a>, including an experiment in which around 80 per cent of 40 student assignments had a high probability of being AI-generated.<\/p>\n This is a global issue. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has warned that\u00a0generative AI is advancing faster than institutional readiness<\/a>, raising concerns about privacy, equity and the long-term future of education.<\/p>\n At its core, this anxiety reflects concern about the purpose of education itself \u2013 not just credentialing, but the development of judgment,\u00a0critical thinking\u00a0<\/a>and intellectual independence.<\/p>\n Finally, there is a quieter concern about authenticity and meaning.<\/p>\n As generative AI becomes capable of producing fluent writing, images and conversation at scale, some people worry less about being replaced and more about being diminished.<\/p>\n They question whether human creativity, effort and connection will continue to be recognised and valued when machine-generated output is ubiquitous.<\/p>\n Research from the Pew Research Center<\/a> captures this unease. Many people express concern that\u00a0AI may reduce human interaction, weaken social connection<\/a>\u00a0and devalue human skills and creativity, even while acknowledging its potential benefits.<\/p>\n These concerns are not anti-technology; they reflect a desire for a future in which human contribution remains visible and meaningful alongside increasingly capable machines.<\/p>\n When people raise anxiety with me \u2013 whether it\u2019s about their health, the environment or technology \u2013 it usually eases once concerns become specific and actionable. AI is no different.<\/p>\n So, here are some tips:<\/p>\n At this moment in history, AI anxiety is not irrational. It reflects rapid change intersecting with our work, education, relationships and identity.<\/p>\n Neither denial nor panic is helpful. Engagement, understanding and our shared responsibility are.<\/p>\n This article was originally published in <\/em>Pursuit<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n