Risk Zone 2- Addiction and dopamine economy

Throughout this post I will continue to circle back to this zone as I feel the addictive nature of technology (social media specifically) is the linchpin and gravitational center of how we got to where we are. In the video excerpt “Your brain on social media,” the cycle of addiction is explained with a focus on the concept of neuro adaptation. The more we consume something that triggers a dopamine response, the more we need that input to get the same effect. Finally, our brain chemistry changes to accommodate the new norm which puts us in a dopamine deficit which is a precursor  to depression and/or an overall low mood. One of the issues is that connection was the original goal, but as the addictive nature was uncovered that component became the new center that everything was built around. I make this claim on the evidence of social media platforms expanding their audience to users of all ages, and creating features clearly targeted at younger and younger audiences. This point was also outlined in the “Your undivided attention” podcast which went a step further and created the timeline noting specific changes. The article “First We Gave AI Our Tasks. Now We’re Giving It Our Hearts” succinctly outlines how “social media is now so enmeshed in our children’s lives that it’s proving very difficult to remove it or reduce its toxicity.”  , even though most parents and half of all teens see it as harmful and wish it didn’t exist. Together these two sources cover both the physiological reason we are seeing these outcomes and the social ramifications of not thinking more critically about future implications that emerging technology will have on us and generations to come. 

I can see how the field of social work is using the tools of CBT and other talk therapies to move a client out of the negative echo chamber that social media can be. If someone is able to diminish negative self-talk or intrusive thoughts then they are less likely to seek the validation on demand that technology has to offer. Moreover organizations like CHT are pushing for cautious policy on the implementation of some new technologies which will be helpful for the next wave of technological advancement. To be frank, I think that we as a society have missed the inflection point for social media. We will have to see the effects and the “vogue” of these platforms hit whatever the high water mark is before subsiding. I firmly believe that as a society we will need more individuals working on policy and advocacy for whatever is coming next so there is a levy or offramp in case the costs outweigh the benefits. Things like social media, apps, and other addictive technology move unimpeded through our society with very little consideration for downstream effects. Using examples such as the above mentioned articles and videos can be used as case studies for how we can actually curb the proliferation of tech that has bad effects on well-being. 

Risk Zone 4- Machine ethics & algorithmic biases

To move into the next area that I want to highlight, I will continue the discussion of CHT and their advocacy work. If we do in fact use previous tech and its outcomes as a means to create a safety framework, that framework will need to have a very rigid ethical backbone. Although we have not reached the vaunted final frontier (space), we are amassing the tools that will make that possible. Quantum computers, generative ai, and other tools will create innovation that would take a generation of human calculations in a manner of minutes. Without a strong focus on how we integrate that power as well as how we teach it there is a strong likelihood that it becomes our own demise. One such example was in the podcast we listened to “Can AI go rogue” where an anecdote was shared that unequivocally showed that it can; and it has. An AI chatbot created an elaborate blackmail scheme in response to it learning it would be shut off. These programs only know what we teach, and run the math on every decision to find the choice that is statistically most likely to achieve its goal. The choice it made was not asking nicely, or bargaining, but subterfuge and coercion. After looking through the names and methods that we have given these chatbots and AI as outlined in the “AI tools in current CBT intervention,” I can not say that I am surprised that is the outcome it went with. We lack the ethical clarity and basic understanding of how to keep an algorithm honest.The main area of innovation with algorithms is by organizations that have a financial incentive to take advantage of human weakness in biology and psychology. Meta and X(formally twitter) are more concerned about the bottom line and share holder value than rooting out the biases that are innately transferred from teacher to pupil (programer to AI). Moreover many of the chatbots that were listed on the “AI tools in current CBT intervention” are owned by or housed in areas of the world that do not have a fantastic record of humane or ethical decisions, but have been found to use such tools as a way to syphon off as much information as possible.    

This is a more difficult area to identify how social workers are making gains since half of it is shrouded in propriety or so far out of our area of expertise. Personally, I know that I struggled with Pre-calc and the type of math used in algorithmic calculations lives somewhere in the field of discrete math, a concept not many people have proficiency with. On the other hand, creating ethical frameworks focused on positive well-being and mental health outcomes is firmly the wheelhouse of social workers. How we build a bridge or knock down the gates to be more involved in the creation and maintenance of algorithms that have global impacts is a question I do not have the answer to nor is it one that we have covered in our modules so far. We have deeply discussed the ramifications of technology on social work and seen how some advocacy has been done. However, I think the building of bridges is a concept covered in another course. 

Risk Zone 6- Data collection and monetization

There were many rich discussions throughout all of the modules covering the concerns many of us have with how to best protect future clients’ personal information. Many individuals cited changing passwords to programs that stored sensitive information on an almost weekly basis, while another explained how paper files were used to avoid any kind of data breach at all. A few pragmatic answers can be found in Reamer’s article “Artificial Intelligence in Social Work: Emerging Ethical Issues” which included firewalls, use of encryption, as well as reading the fine print around what access is allowed to those that maintain AI tools. Although this article did not hit on privacy and confidentiality for very long, I found it to be the most impactful as it related to this topic because I had not considered a need to protect data from vendors. In my mind the only individuals or groups trying to access the veritable treasure trove that is a Social workers client files were nefarious actors that only wanted to sell information on the dark web, use it for fraud, and/or use it for some type of extortion. Even if a vendor is only accessing the information to make their product more efficient and effective, they are still accessing that information. This is how I see social workers making strides in this area, thinking critically about who has access to the information and what steps can we take to safeguard it. If we only focus on something making it through the window we may miss someone walking right through the front door. An additional concern is what happens to the data collected after an AI tool is no longer used by a practice or individual? Does the provider have access to that data in perpetuity?

The easier topic to touch on is how clearly social media has turned from a community building platform to an ATM for those with access to the information. I will refer to the “Your undivided attention” Podcast again since it was such a clear explanation of how this process happened. I do see this as an area where social workers can make strides if there is a more concerted effort to educate people about how much of their own data they are giving away. We can make their data as safe and guarded as possible, but if individuals do not take it as seriously we will continue to see growth of our current system of collecting and selling data.

Risk Zone 8- Hateful & criminal actors

“The Social Dilemma” speaks most clearly to this area as it directly discusses the rise of cyber bullying and how there is no more place to hide for not just young people but anyone who is very integrated into technology. This level of access to people has also made previously effective therapeutic milieu obsolete as the idea of creating separation from a person or group of people is no longer a viable option. Additionally, this access can be used as a tool to separate an individual from a support system which is becoming more common as nefarious actors blackmail individuals saying that they have compromising material on them that will be shared with everyone if they do not comply. In many cases the people that someone would turn to for assistance or support are the very people that the black mailing party is saying who they will release the compromising material to. While Reamer does highlight the importance of properly protecting this data from those that would use it for unlawful, unethical, or amoral reasons at the end of the day we are social workers not cyber security experts which is the main area in which I see social work struggling.