Utahns embrace AI, parental responsibility and child safety

Originally published in Utah Policy​.

Debates about artificial intelligence (AI) legislation at the state and national levels often elevate the two poles of the debate. A new Sutherland Institute/Y2 Analytics survey shows that Utah voters take a more balanced, authentically American approach: Cautious optimism paired with personal responsibility. Public policy should do likewise.

The survey shows that Utah voters view AI as a helpful technological tool, like a computer. They recognize the efficiency and information benefits, while also understanding the risks to some jobs and privacy. That dual reaction reveals a public focus on practical impacts, not politics or partisanship. Utah voter opinion on AI reflects the principle of prudence (where it is used) and a concern for people (who is affected).

In fields like science, healthcare, research, and business, voters are upbeat about AI’s positive impact. They see AI as a tool that can accelerate breakthroughs, improve diagnoses, and strengthen economic prosperity. These are areas where the technology enhances human capability rather than replacing people. But skepticism rises in spheres of civic authority and child development — policing, education, government decision-making, and family life.

Voters view parents as primarily responsible for their child’s safety with AI, with tech companies and schools in supporting roles. State and federal government is low on the list. Yet Utah voters also generally support AI regulation of some form in many areas of society.

These views may seem to conflict, but they are consistent and point to a three-pronged, empowered-parent AI framework for lawmakers.

First, trust parents with their children and don’t overrule their responsibilities. Utah voters recognize that those closest to children — their parents — should lead when it comes to AI safety. Public policy should respect the wisdom that says the people closest to an issue are the best ones to decide it.

Second, propose general AI guidelines in legislation that give parents, tech companies, and schools autonomy in protecting children. That means AI laws and regulations should respect the responsibility and freedom of people and institutions on the ground, rather than dictating from a distance.

Third, recognize and understand how AI is currently promoting human flourishing, and don’t deny that to future generations. Sound policy must recognize that the same AI models that raise concern are also used in ways that benefit people. Public policy should avoid making beneficial uses harder. First, do no harm.

This framework has straightforward applications for AI legislation in Utah. Policymakers should not use the blunt instrument of law to solve complex technological challenges. Instead, any AI legislation should promote the idea that families are the first line of defense, schools help teach responsible use, and AI developers are expected to build safer systems. Government is ill-suited to step into any of those realms and dictate at the micro-level how they should work.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping American life, and will likely continue to do so, regardless of any particular new law that gets enacted. The real question is whether AI policy will strengthen self-government by reflecting the will of the people or undermine it by serving factional interests. Utah voters appear ready for an approach grounded in practical principles and consensus.

Utahns do not want their representatives to slow the development of AI that can help human beings flourish in the future. They do want parental responsibilities for child safety to be properly recognized and respected in laws and regulations. Before enacting any proposed AI legislation, Utah lawmakers should ensure they get it right.