The problem, I believe, is in the word "exciting". It's simply too broad to make reasonable generalizations about. Exciting technology to one person might be sorting a text file, to another person it might be creating a GAN dapp.

If other people have to use and maintain this thing we find exciting, it stands to reason that perhaps they might not find it so exciting. If social media has taught us anything, is that interactions with UXs that give us dopamine hits may not be in our own or others' best interest over the long run.

I like "make cool stuff". The focus is on the goal, not the step-by-step interaction. It directs us to the outside, where our code interacts with people, be it users or future code maintainers. It's also vague enough that all sorts of people can define it as they like.

I love exciting new tech and having fun developing. I just don't define that love by how it makes me feel. Instead, I balance how it makes me feel and how it makes others feel too. That leads to a lot of even more interesting and fun places than simply "choose exciting technology"

ADD: Put differently, you always want your goal to "pull" the required complexity out of a system. It's a forcing function. It never works well when you start with a bunch of complexity and try to push it all towards a goal. That's backwards. I think we've sold a lot of developers on the idea that with a cool enough X, they're bound to make cool things for others. After all, look how cool X is!

Doesn't work like that.