What Does it Mean to Be “Human Raised” in the Age of AI?

What Does It Mean to Be “Human Raised” in the Age of AI? 

This conversation took on one of the most pressing questions facing families, educators, and the systems that support them: As artificial intelligence moves into nurseries, playrooms, and classrooms, how do we protect the human connections that no algorithm can replicate? The session featured a fireside chat between Lisa Guernsey of New America and Dana Suskind, M.D., author of the just-released book Human Raised, followed by a rich panel discussion with Kris Perry of Children and Screens, Kali Thorne Ladd of Children’s Institute, and LeNard Pitts of aiEDU. Together, they offered a timely and grounding reminder that the issue is not whether AI is good or bad — but what it is doing to the developing brain, and what we must do to ensure that human connection remains at the center of children’s lives.

“For all of human history, we could safely assume that a child was, in effect, human-raised. That assumption we can no longer take for granted.”
— Dana Suskind, M.D., University of Chicago

The science of human connection and why this moment is different

Dana Suskind opened the fireside chat by tracing the through-line from her landmark book Thirty Million Words to Human Raised — and by explaining why the arrival of AI required a new book entirely. As a pediatric cochlear implant surgeon, she has spent her career understanding how the developing brain is built through nurturing human interaction: the back-and-forth conversation, the messy missteps and repairs, and the attunement between caregiver and child that wires the brain for language, learning, and connection. What AI has done, for the first time in human history, is unlock what she calls the “social gate” — the biological barrier that once ensured young children could only learn from other humans. Tools that mimic human interaction, she warned, are not the same as human interaction — and the difference matters enormously for the developing brain.

The HOPE framework (AI is not a monolith)

A central contribution of Human Raised is its insistence that AI is not a single thing. Suskind drew a distinction between predictive AI — which analyzes data in the background to identify patterns — and generative AI, which talks back, builds relationships, and simulates the very kind of human connection children need most. It is generative AI, she argued, that demands the most careful attention and the clearest frameworks.

To that end, she shared the HOPE framework, four principles families and educators can use to evaluate any technology in a child’s life:

• H — Human connection is irreplaceable. It is not a nice-to-have. It is a biological necessity.
• O — Own the imperfections. Messy, good-enough human interaction is not a bug in the system. It is how children learn to be human.
• P — Protect the early years. The first years of life, when the brain is being built at a rate of a million new neural connections per second, require our most intentional protection.
• E — Enhance, don’t replace. Technology should support and strengthen human connection — never substitute for it.

“Your good-enough parenting — it’s not just good enough, it is actually so, so important. Embrace it.”
— Dana Suskind, M.D.

What the research is telling us

Kris Perry of Children and Screens grounded the panel conversation in the emerging science of AI’s impact on child development. She described two areas of particular concern: (1) cognitive offload, which is the risk that over-reliance on AI during critical developmental windows weakens the executive function muscles children need for deep thinking, creativity, and problem solving; and (2) social-emotional disruption, including a growing body of evidence linking heavy screen media use to disrupted sleep, diminished physical activity, and reduced face-to-face interaction. Most troublingly, she pointed to the rise of what she called the “attachment economy” — the commodification of human connection and bonding by AI systems designed to mimic empathy and intimacy. 

Perry closed with a vision of what a hopeful path forward actually looks like — one in which AI, if integrated thoughtfully, frees us up to be more human rather than displacing our humanity. The goal, she argued, is not to eliminate technology but to ensure that human care remains central to everything we build, everything we deploy, and every decision we make on behalf of children.

“If we’re going to use AI in a safe, human-centered way, it’s to free us up to be more human — not to take over our humanity. We must all be fierce advocates for our children’s humanity.”
— Kris Perry, Children and Screens

The equity fault line

Across the panel, speakers returned repeatedly to the equity dimensions of this moment. Suskind described what she called the potential for the deepest developmental divide we have ever seen: a world in which children with fewer resources end up with more AI and less human interaction, while more affluent children retain access to the relationships and environments that matter most. Perry cited research showing that children from lower-income households already report significantly higher daily screen media consumption — sometimes two to three hours more per day than their higher-income peers — and are disproportionately exposed to lower-quality, highly persuasive digital products designed to maximize engagement rather than foster learning.

Kali Thorne Ladd of Children’s Institute added that equity in the AI era extends beyond access to devices and connectivity. She highlighted the environmental justice dimensions of AI infrastructure, noting that the NAACP has flagged the disproportionate placement of AI data centers in communities of color and low-income rural areas. Oregon, she noted, was among the first states to issue AI guidance for education, but alignment between K–12 and early learning systems remains an unfinished challenge.

Meeting educators and families where they are

LeNard Pitts of aiEDU brought a practitioner’s perspective on what AI readiness looks like in communities, particularly communities where families may not yet have a clear picture of how AI is already shaping their daily lives. His approach begins with recognition: helping parents and educators see that they are already using AI, and that understanding it is the first step toward evaluating it. He described the development of family technology plans, which are simple, practical tools that open up conversation about when and how technology is used at home. Pitts emphasized that educators and families are the experts in their students’ lives, with AI serving at most as an intern. He also pointed to the importance of transparency: when districts vet tools carefully, share what they are deploying and why, and give families the information they need to make informed decisions, including the option to opt out, trust is built and children are better protected. At its core, he argued, AI readiness is not about putting more tools in front of students. It is about making sure that everyone touching a child’s life feels informed, confident, and clear about what they are trying to protect.

Lisa Guernsey of New America offered a forward-looking perspective on what it will take to build the infrastructure parents and educators need. She described two early-stage initiatives at New America: (1) the Reimagining Digital Media for Children project, which aims to better understand what families actually want and need from children’s media, including where current tools are falling short and what a more parent-centered alternative might look like; and (2) the National Commission on Learning Ecosystems, which is bringing together national and regional organizations, including CGLR, to expand hands-on, community-based learning opportunities for children and families experiencing economic hardship. She was direct about the current landscape: the independent research infrastructure that once helped parents navigate children’s media has been significantly eroded; and the public institutions like libraries remain an underutilized but critically important counterweight to the tech industry’s reach. Policy, she argued, must catch up, and the research to inform it must be objective, transparent, and translated in ways that families can actually use.

What gives us hope

The session closed with each panelist sharing what is giving them hope right now. Kali Thorne Ladd pointed to the book itself and to the fact that the research keeps arriving at the same place: Human connection is irreplaceable, and that is a non-negotiable. Kris Perry drew hope from the children who are taking big tech to court and winning and from the growing community of researchers, advocates, and organizations working together with children’s interests at heart. LeNard Pitts pointed to the growing collectiveness across communities working to protect the children they serve. And Lisa Guernsey found hope in the organizations — including Children and Screens, NAEYC, Innovate EDU, and CGLR — that are beginning to work together with children’s and parents’ interests at heart. Dana Suskind pointed to the sense of collectiveness she feels is emerging — a growing recognition that we do not want to be replaced in each other’s lives as parents, teachers, and partners, and that AI, perhaps paradoxically, may be what brings us together around that conviction. 

“Let AI stay where it should be — in the background, supporting us to be the best that we can be.”
— Dana Suskind, M.D.