Responsible Resistance: Social Work’s Stand Against Harmful AI Practices

Protesting on the streets, attending rallies, holding placards, and speaking truths to power about human rights, social and economic justice is not new in social work. In the 21st century, activism and resistance remain relevant, but AI-powered virtual worlds introduce a new era for advancing these efforts. While such technology can empower advocacy for marginalised groups, it also risks perpetuating discrimination and inequality in sophisticated ways (Haider, 2024). This article explores how social workers can responsibly leverage AI technologies while resisting harmful applications that threaten justice and human rights.

Generative AI and social work

AI has been hailed as a societal disruptor—transformative, efficient, and productive. Research shows social workers in England spend extensive hours on administrative paperwork (Johnson et al., 2023). Tools like Magic Notes claim to reduce this burden by 60% (de la Mare, 2024), allowing more time for human engagement. Yet these efficiencies come with caveats. AI outputs are often inaccurate or tone-deaf, requiring extensive human correction (Koutsounia, 2024). Moreover, framing such tools as “neutral” risks obscuring their political nature. When algorithms guide risk assessment or welfare decisions, their values may contradict core social work ethics. Uncritical adoption could allow AI to act as a new political actor—efficient yet ethically hollow.

Generative AI’s promise to solve complex problems conceals deep moral and political risks: algorithmic bias, opacity, privacy violations, and data exploitation. Even developers admit limited understanding of their systems’ decision processes (Haider et al., 2025). The danger lies not only in misuse but in misplaced trust—the belief that technological progress equates to moral progress.

Digital disobedience

When “helping” tools cause harm, compliance is not an ethical option. Social work’s foundation in human dignity, social justice, and anti-oppression demands resistance—both external and internal. Digital disobedience offers one pathway: responsible acts of opposition to unethical AI. This may include whistleblowing, advocacy, or organised refusal to engage with harmful systems. As Morley and Floridi (2020) note, AI poses normative and epistemic risks that must be met with ethical mindfulness. By challenging algorithmic injustice and bias, social workers defend professional integrity in an era where silence equals complicity.

Reclaiming technological spaces

Resistance does not mean rejecting technology outright. It means reclaiming digital spaces for justice—ensuring AI serves humanity rather than profit. Social workers need not master coding to recognise harm; they must, however, understand the politics of digital systems and act courageously when those systems perpetuate inequity. This can include forming alliances with digital rights groups, advocating for transparent AI policy, and cultivating “networks of resistance” within organisations and unions. In doing so, social work reaffirms its historic role as both a profession and a movement for justice.

Courage in a digital age

The politics of social work have always required bravery—confronting oppression and defending human dignity. In the digital era, this courage extends to databases, algorithms, and networks. Resistance is not defiance of the profession; it is fidelity to its values. If the systems we rely upon cause harm, justice demands we learn how to oppose them. The social worker of the future will be part activist, part technologist, and wholly committed to ethical resistance.

References

1. BASW. (2025, July 29). AI note-taking: If you’re not already using it you should be. basw.co.uk
2. de la Mare, T. (2024, Oct 3). AI software a ‘game changer’ for Swindon social workers. bbc.com
3. Haider, S. (2023). Impact of ICTs on Social Workers: A Scoping Review. Springer. doi.org
4. Haider, S. (2024). Exploring opportunities and challenges of AI in social work education. In The Routledge International Handbook of Social Work Teaching. Routledge. doi.org
5. Haider, S., Ferguson, G., Flynn, A., Vseteckova, J., & Giraud, J. (2025). Emerging use of AI in social work education and practice. The Open University.
6. Johnson, C., et al. (2023). DFE-RR1367 Longitudinal study of local authority child and family social workers. gov.uk
7. Koutsounia, A. (2024, Oct 4). AI could be time-saving for social workers but needs regulation. communitycare.co.uk
8. Local Government Association. (2025). Using AI in Adult Social Care Administration. local.gov.uk
9. Morley, J., & Floridi, L. (2020). An ethically mindful approach to AI for health care. The Lancet, 395(10220), 254–255. doi.org
10. Perron, B. E., et al. (2010). Information and Communication Technologies in Social Work. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 67–81.