Should therapists list AI anxiety as a specialty?

Reviewed by: Matthew Sexton, LCSW

No, therapists should not list AI anxiety as a specialty on the strength of the news alone; a directory profile or practice website can name worry about AI and jobs as a concern the clinician works with, if the clinician’s training and caseload support it. The question is current because the Pew Research Center reported in February 2025 that about half of US workers (52%) are worried about the future impact of AI use in the workplace, and The Week reported this month that therapists are seeing more people express anxiety about the technology; the practical step is one plain sentence on the profile, not a new specialty label.

This post is for licensed clinicians in US private practice who write their own profile copy. The evidence is an ethics code, a national survey, a journal commentary and two news reports, checked in October. They show that the worry is reported, and that the social work code ties public claims of competence to actual training. They do not show that naming the concern brings more calls, and they do not describe any credential called AI anxiety. The next useful action is to reread the profile’s specialty list with that line in mind.

Key takeaways

• Pew found about half of US workers (52%) worried about AI in the workplace (Pew Research Center).
• Therapists describe more clients bringing AI fears into session (The Week).
• Social workers may represent themselves as competent only within their education, training and experience (NASW Code of Ethics).

Is AI anxiety actually showing up in therapy?

The reports say yes, though none counts it. The Week writes that fears about AI are becoming increasingly common among therapy clients as the technology reshapes the workplace. A Washington Post piece republished by the Anchorage Daily News quotes Vaile Wright of the American Psychological Association on the fear of AI taking over a job, which risks losing a livelihood and also a purpose.

The worry has a survey behind it. In the Pew Research Center report, about half of workers (52%) said they were worried about the future impact of AI use in the workplace. That is a survey of workers, not of therapy clients. It is context, not a caseload estimate.

Is AI anxiety a recognized specialty?

Nothing checked for this post says so. The Anchorage Daily News piece describes AI anxiety as a term researchers use for apprehension or fear tied to the accelerated development of AI technologies. That is a description of a feeling. It is not a diagnosis, a training track or a credential.

The clinical literature is early. A commentary in Psychiatric Services by Robert Klitzman of Columbia psychiatry says reports of AI-related mental health problems have largely been anecdotal, and that practice, policy, educational and research implications are not yet clear. The same abstract says provider awareness of concerns about AI needs to increase. Awareness is not expertise; a clinician can know a concern well without holding a specialty in it.

What does the ethics code say about naming it?

For social workers, the NASW Code of Ethics says social workers should represent themselves as competent only within the boundaries of their education, training, license, certification, consultation, supervised experience or other relevant professional experience. The same standard addresses new ground directly: where generally recognized standards do not exist for an emerging area of practice, social workers take responsible steps (education, research, training, consultation and supervision) to ensure competence.

The code also covers public statements. Representations to clients and the public of qualifications, competence, services provided or results to be achieved should be accurate, and social workers claim only the credentials they actually possess (NASW Code of Ethics). The code does not mention AI. It does not need to; a profile line about AI worry is a representation of services like any other.

This post checked only the social work code; the codes for psychologists and counselors were not checked.

How can a profile name it plainly?

Describe what clients bring, in plain words. A line such as “I work with adults worried about how AI will change their work and their sense of purpose” is a description of the work. It is not a promise. It names the concern a caller already carries, which is how a person scanning profiles recognizes a fit.

Three checks keep the line honest:

• It matches actual training and experience with work stress, career change or anxiety.
• It says nothing about results; no relief, no timeline, no outcome.
• It sits in the concerns or issues list, not in a credentials or certifications field.

The same wording works on a practice website and on a directory listing, including Couch Commons. On AI search, see how a practice shows up when clients ask ChatGPT for a therapist.

Takeaway

Name the worry if the work is real. Leave “specialty” for areas the clinician’s training already supports, and keep every line free of outcome claims.

Frequently asked questions

Can a therapist write AI anxiety on a directory profile?

Yes, as a plain description of a concern clients bring, when the clinician actually works with it. A specialty or credential claim is a different statement. The NASW Code of Ethics asks social workers to keep representations of competence and services provided accurate.

Is there a certification in AI anxiety?

None of the sources checked for this post describes one, and the NASW Code of Ethics does not mention AI anxiety. A clinician offered such a certificate should check who issues it first.

Is AI anxiety a diagnosis?

None of the sources checked here calls it one. A Washington Post piece republished by the Anchorage Daily News describes it as a term researchers use for apprehension or fear tied to the fast development of AI technologies.

What should a profile avoid saying about AI worry?

Promises about results, and a specialty label the clinician’s training does not support. The NASW Code of Ethics asks that representations of services provided or results to be achieved be accurate.

Sources

All pages checked October 2026.

• Pew Research Center, U.S. Workers Are More Worried Than Hopeful About Future AI Use in the Workplace, published February 2025: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/02/25/u-s-workers-are-more-worried-than-hopeful-about-future-ai-use-in-the-workplace/
• National Association of Social Workers, NASW Code of Ethics, Ethical Responsibilities to Clients: https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English/Social-Workers-Ethical-Responsibilities-to-Clients
• National Association of Social Workers, NASW Code of Ethics, Ethical Responsibilities as Professionals: https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English/Social-Workers-Ethical-Responsibilities-as-Professionals
• Klitzman R., The Growing Need to Address Mental Health Vulnerabilities to Artificial Intelligence, Psychiatric Services, abstract via Europe PMC: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/article/MED/42750085?resultType=core&format=json
• The Week, AI anxiety is making its way into therapists’ offices: https://theweek.com/health/ai-anxiety-has-entered-the-therapy-chat
• Anchorage Daily News (Washington Post), AI anxiety is real. Here’s how to deal with it, according to therapists.: https://www.adn.com/alaska-life/advice/2026/09/19/ai-anxiety-is-real-heres-how-to-deal-with-it-according-to-therapists/
• SAMHSA, 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline: https://www.samhsa.gov/mental-health/988

This article is general information for clinicians, not legal, billing or clinical advice.

If you are in crisis, call or text 988 (US).