The ethical tension that makes me the most uncomfortable in Reamer’s discussion is the possibility of quietly outsourcing parts of my professional judgement to AI, especially in assessment of decision making. It isn’t the fear of technology replacing social workers it is the very real temptation to lean on a tool when social workers are overwhelmed or unsure. I have already felt early versions of this in my previous internships. I felt the pull toward convenience, the systems’ recommendation was faster, cleaner, and easier to justify. Choosing my own judgement required more time and more confidence, and the tension is exactly what makes mt uneasy about AI in practice.
I agree with Reamer that AI can shift power away from practitioners and clients if we aren’t intentional. Bias can hide inside told that look objective, and agencies often adopt technology faster than they build ethical safeguards. But I push back on the idea that AI itself erodes judgement. To me, the real danger is uncritical use like workload pressure, agency culture, and the expectation to be “data driven”. AI doesn’t replace judgement on its own; it simply makes it easier for judgment to be sidelined if we aren’t vigilant.
If a client asked about my stance, I would be direct and transparent. I use some tools that incorporate AI, but they never replace my understanding of them or our shared decision-making. I would tell them that the technology helps me stay organized, yet their voice and my professional judgement guide the work. And if any tool ever suggested something that didn’t feel right to them, I would want them to say so. My commitment is to the client relationship not to the algorithm.
Part 2
Haidt’s and Rausch’s evidence focuses on adolescents, but the population I keep thinking about is children involved in child welfare and school systems, especially those with intellectual disabilities, autism, or sensory and behavioral challenges. Their argument about “ultrasocial” wiring absolutely holds up with this group, but in a way that feels more urgent. I’ve watched children who already struggle with communication or emotional regulation become deeply attached to platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Roblox, not because they’re seeking connection but because the apps offer stimulation, instant reward, and escape from environments that often overwhelm them. Haidt’s framework helps name something I’ve seen but couldn’t articulate; these platforms don’t just distract; they complete the child’s developing capacity for relational engagement.
For some families, especially those navigating poverty, disability, or chaotic home environments, screens are not simply entertainment they’re childcare, calming tools, or the only break parents get all day. I’ve sat with caregiver who know screen time is excessive but feel trapped by circumstance. In clinical work with families or groups, this mean I can’t approach Haidt’s evidence with a moralizing tone. Instead, I have to help families build healthier patterns without shaming the coping strategies they rely on. In addiction services, the parallels are striking, the compulsive pull of TikTok or gaming mirrors behavioral addiction, and I’ve seen children melt down when devices are removed not unlike withdrawal. Still, Haidt’s argument doesn’t fully translate to children with developmental disabilities, because their relationship to technology isn’t always about social displacement it can also be about regulation, communication, or special interest. His frameworks clarify the risk, but practice require compassion and understanding of why families turn to these platforms in the first place.
Hey Nyla,
I appreciate that you spoke about AI concerns in your post – it’s a big one that I think about often, especially as someone that is particularly disinclined towards it’s use. I actually had a supervisor push me to use it in my last internship and she taught me a lot about how to use it in a manner that included thorough review and deliberate prompts to mitigate some of the problematic ‘dreaming’ that can occur when not carefully monitoring it’s output. I can understand your pushback about how it might erode a professional’s judgement, but I disagree. I think it certainly has the risk to do so. The phrase “if you don’t use it, you lose it” comes to mind. I think this is particularly risky for professionals still developing their judgement and their own confidence in their judgements. Similar to how it can stunt one’s ability to grow as a writer, I think it can also stunt someone’s ability to critically reflect and judge content and situations for themselves IF it is overused. Once and awhile may be find, but over-reliance is where I think this is most likely to occur.
One aspect in your post I really agreed with and appreciated was approaching the discussion of screen time from a compassionate position, rather than a judgmental one. In my work as a nanny, screen time was one of the most difficult aspects to manage. The addictive quality it has on children is readily apparent – it was easier to ween the toddler off of his binky than it was to regulate and limit screen time for the 5th grader. While my bosses did an admirable job of mitigating it and using it as a reward rather than a default, they had ample resources (such as a nanny) to assist them in their ability to do so. Once a child is used to having the safety blanket of a screen to provide that reward mechanism, it is extremely difficult to reduce and limit it’s use. Temper tantrums are huge when it’s attempted, and mood issues become exacerbated by the sudden lack of consistent reward chemicals in the brain. I would reason that the use of such screens may worsen some developmental disabilities while helping others. Considering non-verbal autism, technology can provide an intuitive system of communication with the right apps. It can also help establish routine if used carefully, which is an important factor for many children both with or without developmental disabilities. On the other hand, it may also worsen their ability to learn or establish person-to-person behavior or communication patterns if there is an overreliance that replaces such interactions and learning opportunities.
Hey Nyla,
I chose the Reamer article focused on ethical boundaries, so having your perspective on the AI article allows me to have some discussion around separate concerns that I had not had the chance to interact with this week. Your insights into AI and the limits you have placed are very relatable. In my work of developing trainings and educational materials, I have also felt the pull to lean on AI platforms like ChatGPT to make my workload lighter. I agree with your viewpoint that AI should not replace our professional judgement or knowledge, but instead can be used to aid in organization. In my personal experience, I have used AI to help me integrate activities into my presentations and give me advice on how to put the information in chronological order that would most make sense to the audience. However, even then, I hesitate to use AI in this way because I do not want to lose the ability to use my own imagination and experience to integrate these aspects into my work. AI is here to stay, so I find myself having conflicts with supporting AI and trying to shy away from it when possible.
In regard to Haidt’s and Rausch’s arguments for technoskeptisim, I originally fully agreed with them. In my work with traumatized children, I have seen the negative impacts it can have on development and recovery. Your perspective for children with disabilities challenged my beliefs and allowed me to consider a different perspective. A population I also believe this weeks materials can relate to are caregivers. Parents, especially of traumatized children, have expressed their need for “me time” and having a break. Through conversation, caregivers have expressed that it is virtually impossible to have a physical break from their children due to a lack of social support. Because of this, parents lean to platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok to find an escape from their realities. Due to the addictive nature of social media algorithms, I feel that Haidt’s and Reamer’s arguments can apply to parents and other adults as well. Since humans are ultrasocial, they are leaning on social media to fill this void. Not only could this be harmful for the adults, but it is also what their children see. I have concerns for intergenerational dependency on technology and how this is and will impact social environments.
With your post in mind, if any, what interventions are possible to help caregivers and children have more in-person social interaction? Or, do you believe these interventions are necessary at all?