The more I tap in, the more excessive words feel. 

Took the time to catch up on sleep. Did a 7 mile long run after, then kept experimenting with Gastown.

I am a hopeful romantic. Everything is possible. I really believe that.

今日は、なんだか自分の中のいろんな面が顔を出した一日だった。 今日も僕は、あらゆる面において一人だった。 家族も友達もちゃんといるけれど、それでも一人だなあといつも思っている。

朝、顔に日焼け止めを塗っていたとき、ふと「左右で色が違ったらどうなるんだろう」と思って、右半分だけ塗ってみた。鏡の中の自分が、ちょっとした実験動物みたいで、思わず笑ってしまった。

そのままの顔で陶芸教室へ。 今日は最初から「誰とも話さないって決めたんだ」って、隣に座ったおじさんに宣言してみた。普段はよく喋るから、たまにはこういう日があってもいいかなって思って。 でも結局、土をこねながら「この粘土、ちょっと乾いてません？」って話しかけてしまった。おじさん、少し笑ってた。

帰り道、団地のエレベーターに乗るとき、誰もいないのに「今、団地がアツいんだよね」ってつぶやいてみた。誰に向けて言ったのか、自分でもよくわからないけど、なんだか気分がよかった。

午後は、チラシが風に乗って飛んできそうな時間を見計らって、玄関前にイスを出して待ってみた。案の定、ふわっと一枚、舞ってきた。手に取ってみたら、地域の陶芸展の案内だった。今日の自分にぴったりすぎて、また笑ってしまった。

夕方、公園に行って、グローブを二つ持ってベンチに座った。 学校帰りの子どもが通りかかったから、目で「どう？」って誘ってみたけど、スルーされた。まあ、そんな日もある。

夜は、録画してあった紅白を持ち寄って、友人たちと鑑賞会。 「このシーン、巻き戻していい？」って、誰よりも早くリモコンを握ってた。 みんな笑ってたけど、ちゃんと巻き戻させてくれた。

ふとした拍子に、昔の友だちの名前をインターネットで検索してみた。 何かを知りたいわけじゃない。ただ、今もどこかで元気にしてるといいなって思っただけ。

そういえば、アロハシャツをタンスの奥に隠してたんだった。 「いつか着る日」を、自分でも忘れるようにして。 でも、今日みたいな日は、ちょっとだけ思い出してもいいかもしれない。

学校の授業中、退屈で机に突っ伏して寝ていたら、隣の女子に話しかけられた。 「君って、寝てるときも髪が整ってるんだね」って。 そうなのか。僕は、寝てるときも髪型がキマっているんだ。

机の引き出しから、昔もらったパンフレットを引っ張り出して、赤ペンで線を引いた所を確認する。 昔の自分はこんな所に線を引いていたのかと、昔と今の距離を測る。

僕にとっての一日の終わりは、夜寝る時じゃない。 一日の終わりが、放課後なのが、この僕である。

⚠️ Warning: Political Rant

Okay, this is one of the few politically related posts I make each year because politics are so divisive. So here’s your warning: if you’d rather not read political commentary, feel free to stop here.

The recent armed action against Iran has me conflicted. I believe it's more of a distraction and a pretext than a genuine strategic necessity. While the issues we face in America come from the neglect of both parties, Trump seems to be using these problems to his advantage. This situation should have been addressed years ago when Iran first began developing its nuclear program. The United States is skilled at acting as a global police force and solving immediate problems but not at handling long-term challenges such as nation building. We have never successfully created a functioning foreign democracy.

Historically, outside powers that try to build nations in their own image often fail in the long run. They either cannot fully erase local culture, or they create deep resentment in the process. The British Empire tried to project its institutions and values onto places like India and large parts of the Middle East, disrupting older political and cultural systems. When the British Empire withdrew, it left behind borders and governments that did not always match local realities, which helped fuel instability that continues today.

While I don't completely disagree with action against Iran, it should have happened years ago, just like with Cuba. The situation in Cuba also should have been resolved long ago. I believe the United States should help guide Cuba until it becomes a stable modern democracy, intervening firmly if it begins to stray.

What concerns me most now are the costs in lives, money, and timing. I fear this situation might serve as a pretext to interfere with the upcoming elections or to distract from other issues such as the release of the Epstein files and broader corruption. If this administration were honest, I might believe the urgency. But after so much misdirection, self-dealing, and falsehoods, I can't give this president the benefit of the doubt anymore. That ended with January 6th.

On top of that, he hasn't delivered on most of his campaign promises. My bills keep rising, and while a few prices have gone down, those savings are offset elsewhere. Every time it seems the economy might recover, he makes comments that hurt it further. Tariffs are taxes, and the public ultimately pays them. If any other president behaved this way, there would be outrage in Congress. Yet for some reason, this one is treated differently from any president I've seen in my lifetime.

I only hope Congress learns from this experience. And I don't want to hear any Republican complain if a future Democratic president takes similar actions. Our political system has several deep problems. One of the largest is the lack of adequate representation. I've said it for years: 435 Representatives and 100 Senators for over 330 million people isn't right. We should have at least one representative for every 50,000 citizens. There are certainly aspects of our own Constitution that could be improved, and Trump has exploited some of its weaknesses.

We also need new constitutional amendments; term limits, stronger limits on presidential power, and real consequences for any president who forgets that they are a steward of the people, not a monarch. Congress itself must also move away from party dominance. Partisan politics are destroying this country. I'm glad I left both parties and now consider myself a proud independent.

End of rant.

#opinion #politics

March 2, 2026

Who am I to write during the times that we face today? Honestly, I am no one. That's right. Officially, No One. I am whispered about, blamed when there's nothing else to blame, put on the spot, invisible yet always seen. Just like you, I am me. No one.

Recently, my thoughts have been loud and nowhere to voice it. Hopefully today, my words can at least be seen for no one in particular but really just for me. I genuinely hope that these words today can reach out, from wherever one may read this. I want thought and passion. I wish for the days again where words meant something. Where words didn't get muddy with propaganda. Or words that could touch the very soul that belongs to someone. My dream is for my words today to reach someone, anyone, maybe no one.

As I write to myself, I must ask myself, the very question that I think we all face as no one. What am I to do today?

Do I have answer? Does anyone?

Probably like most, I woke up today in my bed in a room that had electricity. My clock sitting on my bedside table gave me the measure for what I was hoping to do this day. Laundry. Dishes. Maybe go for a walk. Sadly, none of those things happened. Instead, I found myself pondering about the news and only found myself more sad. The news of death does not come as a shock anymore. The fight between many people all over is numbing to hear. A crime that was committed for many years by many people with no repercussions. And with no one caring about anyone except for their own.

I am no different. I have already established that I am no one.

These past many years, we have all been through it. From being locked inside in fear of disease that some would say was a common cold, to being on the brink of civil war, to also being at the brink of World War 3. And I can tell you now, I miss my childhood. This time is not for the weak. This time is for the resilient. It is a time for no one.

I can keep going to work every day, as my coworkers and I discuss all the events that go on outside of our bubble, but no one really cares. I say, “How are you,” as if I already don't know. Most likely the same answer will be given. “I'm good.” No one is good. No one is happy. Everyone is sad. As someone once said, “He has only time to be a machine.” Is that all one can be? To live day in day out, with expectations from peers, family, elders, and corporations to just do what they want you to do. There are hardly times that I can afford to give myself pleasantries. And when I do have time, I must fill it with the urge to get all my chores done so I do not lose my place as no one and be lower than no one. And we all have seen what becomes of someone who is lower than no one. Holding up a carboard sign at a corner of a street, with clothes that don't fit and matted hair, and resorting to the few things that could hopefully take the mind off of the shame of what was lost.

No one is a machine. With each minute that passes by, we are like clockwork. Traffic starting at 7:30 in the morning, while we all rush to go to our jobs that pays us every two weeks, only to be in that same traffic around 5 o'clock in the evening just to come home and do it all over the next day. Most of us eat around noon while we sit with our coworkers, we see every day and talk about the mundane things. How's the significant other? How are the kids? Are you still in search for a house on the market? Did you hear what happened yesterday? And yet no one fully grasps the potential that we could reach. Just like machines, we function as we have been programmed. To work and be led by what is outside our bubbles, when really no one cares about what is in our bubble.

From a young age, this has been our program. We go to school most starting around 8 in the morning. Each child sitting at a desk listening to what is being taught, some getting punished for asking questions outside of the norm, and we would sit there until noon to eat and play with our friends, just to then go back to that desk. A bell dismissed us around 3 in the afternoon, just for us to go home and do the nagging task of homework. Just to do it for the next twelve years of our lives. And some will take it further for another four to ten years to specialize in something just to get a small jump in that field of work. Do you see the similarity?

This might be just a thought; can we reach out and pop that bubble? Is no one ready to step away from what has been or is everyone afraid? Has anyone proven that we are resilient? Are we still no one?

I am not asking for revolution but if someone is out there who wants to start it, I say no one needs it. No one can win with war. Though they say there are victors. But what did those victors have to do to survive? What I am asking has already been asked.

What am I to do today?

There is so much that we cannot see even when it is right in front of us. And if we are afraid, then let's be strong together. Be resilient. I ask no one to be more than the mundane. That's the goal for today. Be more than a machine. To be more than what no one has been programmed to be.

In December 2025, Governor Spencer Cox stood before an audience of government officials, business leaders, and academics at the Utah AI Summit in Salt Lake City and announced a vision he called “pro-human AI.” The initiative would spread across six areas: workforce development, industry, state government, academia, public policy, and learning. It would invest $10 million in AI-ready workforce curriculum. It would position Utah as a national model for responsible artificial intelligence governance. And it would do all of this while the state simultaneously prepared to host some of the largest data centre campuses on the planet, facilities whose combined energy demands could consume four times the electricity that Utah residents and businesses currently use.

The tension between these two commitments is not incidental. It is structural. Utah has become, perhaps more than any other state, a laboratory for testing whether a government can credibly regulate the harms of artificial intelligence while aggressively courting the industry that produces them. Governor Cox has articulated this duality with a clarity unusual in American politics: “Let's use this technology to benefit humankind, and let's regulate it to make sure they don't destroy humankind. I don't think that's a contradiction. I think that's common sense.” The question is whether common sense can survive contact with the economic incentives now converging on a stretch of desert southeast of Delta, Utah, where a 20-million-square-foot data centre campus is already under construction.

Sandboxes, Disclosure Rules, and a Very Light Touch

Utah's regulatory framework for artificial intelligence is, by design, the lightest in the nation. The Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, Senate Bill 149, signed into law on 13 March 2024 and effective from 1 May that year, created the country's first Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and established what the state calls a “learning laboratory” for AI innovation. Businesses can apply to test AI systems under state supervision, receiving temporary regulatory mitigation in exchange for consumer safeguards and transparency commitments. If a product deceives a customer or causes harm during the testing period, the developer works with regulators toward a reduced penalty. The idea, borrowed from Utah's earlier financial technology sandbox programme launched in 2019, is to encourage small AI developers to innovate without paralysing fear of enforcement.

The Act's substantive requirements are modest. Certain licensed professions, including mental health providers, must disclose upfront when a person is interacting with AI. Other professions, including telemarketing, must disclose AI usage only if asked. Violations carry an administrative fine of up to $2,500 and a civil penalty of up to $5,000. Compared to Colorado's SB24-205, which includes algorithmic discrimination prohibitions, impact assessment mandates, and risk management requirements, Utah's approach is deliberately permissive. As the IAPP noted upon the bill's passage, Utah brought generative AI into the consumer protection realm while stopping well short of imposing the kind of obligations that might deter investment.

Subsequent legislation has added layers without fundamentally altering the architecture. In March 2025, Governor Cox signed SB 271, the Unauthorized AI Impersonation Act, extending existing identity abuse laws to cover commercial deepfake usage. A separate bill barred mental health chatbots from selling Utahns' personal health data or using it to target users with advertisements. The 2025 legislative session also extended the Act's expiration date by two years, to July 2027, while SB 226 narrowed disclosure requirements so that they apply only when a consumer directly asks or during “high-risk” interactions. Each adjustment further refined the core philosophy: regulate the use of AI where it touches vulnerable populations, but leave the development of AI technology essentially untouched.

This philosophy is one Governor Cox has articulated explicitly. “The government should not be regulating the development of AI,” he told the AI Summit audience, “but the minute you decide to use those tools to give my kid a sexualised chatbot, then it's my business, and it's the government's business.” It is a line that draws an appealingly clean distinction between creation and deployment, between the forge and the marketplace. It is also a distinction that becomes harder to maintain when the state's economic strategy depends on making Utah the forge itself.

Building the Forge: Operation Gigawatt and the Data Centre Rush

At the One Utah Summit in October 2024, Governor Cox unveiled Operation Gigawatt, an initiative to double the state's power production within a decade by adding four gigawatts of capacity. The plan targets nuclear and geothermal energy as its centrepieces, alongside an “all of the above” approach that nominally includes solar and wind, though those resources have faded from the practical conversation. Cox has framed the initiative in the language of geopolitical competition, warning of a new global “arms race” over who will ultimately control artificial intelligence technologies and the energy they need. The motivation is straightforward: data centres need power, and Utah's main electricity provider, Rocky Mountain Power, does not have nearly enough.

The scale of what is being built is staggering. Creekstone Energy is developing the Delta Gigasite in Millard County, a 20-million-square-foot campus that would be the world's largest data centre complex, eclipsing the current record holder in Inner Mongolia. The company plans to manage 10 gigawatts of capacity at the site, drawing from a mix of solar, natural gas, and power from the Intermountain Power Project, with nuclear under active evaluation. In December 2025, Creekstone signed a memorandum of understanding with Salt Lake City-headquartered EnergySolutions to study the integration of at least two gigawatts of next-generation nuclear power, with a target for commercial operation between 2030 and 2035. Creekstone's CEO, Ray Conley, described nuclear as having “the potential to complement our multisource approach and support the growth of large-scale AI and digital-infrastructure development.”

Less than a mile away, Joule Capital Partners is building a 4,000-acre, four-gigawatt data centre campus focused on AI workloads, set to begin operations in 2026. Initial plans call for six buildings, each powered by 69 Caterpillar natural gas generators. The battery storage system is permitted to accept cleaner electricity sources, including fuel cells and a nearby geothermal project under construction by Fervo Energy, as well as small modular nuclear reactors should they become commercially available. But for the foreseeable future, the power will come from burning natural gas.

In Eagle Mountain, Meta's data campus is expanding, a large QTS data hub is under construction, and Google is waiting to build on 300 acres it owns within city limits. Google has already delayed its Eagle Mountain build due to energy constraints, prompting the city council to explore constructing small nuclear reactors. In Brigham City, a $750 million partnership between Hi Tech Solutions and Holtec International, announced in November 2025, aims to create what Cox described as “a complete civil nuclear energy ecosystem from start to finish.” The plan envisions up to ten Holtec SMR-300 small modular reactors for civilian and military use, a manufacturing hub, and a workforce training centre developed with Utah's universities and technical colleges. The first reactor is not expected to come online until the early 2030s.

A February 2026 investigation by The Salt Lake Tribune, published in partnership with Grist, reported that data centres planned for Utah could consume as much as four times the electricity the state currently uses. Industry analysts expected both the quantity of data centres and the amount of power they consume to quadruple over the next four years. Joule's applications filed with the state indicate an initial output of one gigawatt, roughly a quarter of Utah's current annual electricity consumption, but public statements suggest the eventual target exceeds four gigawatts.

The environmental costs are not limited to carbon emissions. Water, in a state engulfed in a decades-long drought, is an equally pressing concern. The Salt Lake Tribune found that the NSA data centre in Bluffdale consumed more than 126 million gallons between October 2024 and September 2025, enough to meet the annual indoor needs of nearly 800 Utah households. Until recently, data centres in the state were not required to report their water use. State Representative Jill Koford, a Republican, introduced legislation in 2026 to require aggregated water use reporting, acknowledging that “we really don't have any statewide guardrails for reporting and transparency.” This is the same state whose governor stood on the shores of the drying Great Salt Lake in late 2025 pledging to help refill it in time for the 2034 Winter Olympics.

This is the economic engine that “pro-human AI” regulation must coexist with. In March 2025, the Utah Legislature passed SB 132, allowing private companies with energy demands of 100 megawatts or more to build their own generating stations that operate off the public grid. The bill's sponsor, Senator Scott Sandall, specifically cited data centres as the impetus. The legislation was designed to prevent the costs of massive new energy infrastructure from being passed to existing ratepayers, but it simultaneously codified the principle that data centre operators can bypass the regulated utility system entirely, generating their own power on their own terms.

Children, Algorithms, and the Companies Utah Needs

The centrepiece of Governor Cox's moral argument for state-level AI regulation is child safety. His rhetoric on this subject is forceful and specific. “It's one thing if we're fighting China and you're developing your model,” he said at the 2026 Politico Governors Summit in Washington, D.C. “But once you start selling sexualised chatbots to kids in my state, now I have a problem with that, and I'm going to get involved there, and the Supreme Court is going to back me up on that.”

Utah has indeed been among the most aggressive states in the nation at addressing algorithmic harms to children. In 2024, the legislature passed two significant bills. HB 464 created a private right of action for minors who suffer adverse mental health outcomes arising from excessive use of algorithmically curated social media services, with a rebuttable presumption that the platform's algorithms caused the harm. Damages start at $10,000. SB 194, the Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act, required social media platforms to implement age verification, embedded parental controls, and default privacy settings for minor accounts, including mandatory parent-scheduled social media breaks, daily usage time limits, prohibition of autoplay functions, and a blackout window from 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.

These were not tentative measures. They represented a genuine attempt to hold social media companies accountable for design choices that optimise engagement at the expense of adolescent wellbeing. The legislative intent drew directly on years of research and disclosure. In 2021, Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee, disclosed thousands of internal documents confirming that Meta was aware of Instagram's negative impact on teen mental health. Facebook's own internal research found that 13.5 per cent of teen girls said Instagram worsened suicidal thoughts, and 32 per cent reported that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse. A second whistleblower, Arturo Bejar, testified before Congress in 2023 that Meta's top executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, had ignored internal warnings for years. The business incentive driving these design choices is substantial: research has estimated that social media platforms generate nearly $11 billion annually in advertising revenue from users aged 0 to 17, creating a powerful structural motivation to keep minors engaged regardless of the consequences.

The problem is that the courts have not been kind to Utah's ambitions. On 10 September 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby issued a 39-page ruling granting a preliminary injunction against SB 194, blocking the law from taking effect. NetChoice, a trade association representing Google, Meta, Snap, and X, had argued the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Shelby agreed that NetChoice was “substantially likely to succeed on its claim that the Act violates the First Amendment,” finding that the law imposed content-based restrictions and was not narrowly tailored to achieve the state's goals. He also noted that Utah had “not provided evidence establishing a clear, causal relationship between minors' social media use and negative mental health impacts.” The state appealed; a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit heard arguments in November 2025, with the outcome still pending.

The ruling illustrated a fundamental asymmetry. States can pass laws condemning algorithmic harms. Courts can block those laws as unconstitutional. And the companies whose business models depend on maximising adolescent engagement continue operating largely unchanged. The same companies that Utah's child safety legislation targets are, in many cases, the same companies whose data centre operations Utah is working to attract.

The Federal Collision and the Shape of Compromise

The conflict between state-level child protection and federal deregulatory pressure reached its sharpest point in February 2026. Representative Doug Fiefia, a Utah Republican, introduced HB 286, the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act, which would require frontier AI companies to publish safety and child protection plans, produce risk assessments for original AI models, report safety incidents to the state's Office of AI Policy, and face civil penalties of $1 million for a first violation and $3 million for subsequent violations. The bill also included whistleblower protections for employees who report safety concerns.

The White House responded with remarkable force. On 12 February 2026, the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs sent a letter to Republican Utah Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore Jr. declaring itself “categorically opposed to Utah HB 286” and calling it “an unfixable bill that goes against the Administration's AI Agenda.” White House officials had spent two weeks urging Fiefia not to move the bill forward and, according to reporting by Axios, did not offer specific changes that could make it acceptable. A source told Axios that the White House official indicated “there's nothing Fiefia can do to make him happy.”

The intervention was extraordinary. A Republican administration was pressuring a Republican-controlled state legislature to abandon a transparency bill with overwhelming bipartisan public support. A January 2026 poll by Public Opinion Strategies found that more than 90 per cent of Utah voters supported every component of HB 286, with approximately 80 per cent signalling strong support. Seventy-eight per cent wanted lawmakers to prioritise AI safety bills. Seventy-one per cent worried the state would not regulate AI enough. And 61 per cent opposed President Trump's executive order blocking state AI legislation.

National polling told a similar story. The Institute for Family Studies surveyed 6,200 voters and found that 90 per cent chose child safety over preventing states from passing AI regulations that could burden tech companies. This included 89 per cent of Trump voters and 95 per cent of Harris voters.

The resolution has been a familiar one in American politics: the ambitious bill was set aside, and a more modest alternative advanced. House Speaker Mike Schultz pointed to Fiefia's other bill, HB 438, the Companion Chatbot Safety Act, as “the bill we're going to move forward with for sure.” HB 438 requires AI chatbots to obtain consent before sharing user data, clearly disclose advertisements, and treat minors with special care. Companion chatbots designed to simulate intimate relationships must notify young users every hour that they should take a break, that the chatbot is not a real human, and that companion chatbots may be unhealthy. It is a useful bill. It is also a substantially less threatening one. Not everyone views the retreat as a compromise; the Libertas Institute, a Utah-based libertarian think tank, argued that HB 286 represented “government overreach in AI development,” contending that broad paperwork mandates and significant penalties would burden developers without meaningfully protecting children.

The Subsidy Landscape and Who Pays

Understanding the structural tension in Utah's position requires looking beyond legislation and into the economics of data centre incentives. In April 2025, Good Jobs First, a nonprofit watchdog organisation tracking economic development subsidies, published a report finding that at least ten states were already losing more than $100 million per year in tax revenue to data centres. Texas alone was losing an estimated $1 billion in fiscal year 2025.

A follow-up report in November 2025 revealed that of 32 states with tax incentives for data centres, 12 failed to disclose even aggregate revenue losses. Those 12 “dark” states included Utah. Good Jobs First found that states which had computed their returns determined they were losing between 52 and 70 cents for every dollar spent on sales tax exemptions.

Utah's own incentive structure is layered. Senate Bill 114, passed in 2020, provides sales and use tax exemptions for qualifying data centres of 150,000 square feet or more. The Economic Development Tax Increment Financing programme offers post-performance tax credit rebates of up to 30 per cent of new state revenue over project lifespans of five to twenty years. The Rural Economic Development Incentive Programme provides even more generous terms for investments in rural areas, with rebates of up to 50 per cent of new state revenues.

These incentives exist because every state wants data centres, and the companies building them have the leverage to choose among dozens of competing jurisdictions. The result is a dynamic in which the same state government articulating a “pro-human” vision for AI is simultaneously offering financial inducements to the companies whose products generate the harms that vision purports to address. This is not hypocrisy in the conventional sense. It is the structural reality of federalism in a market economy where capital is mobile and tax bases are not.

What Genuine Sacrifice Would Actually Look Like

The most revealing question about Utah's “pro-human AI” framework is one that almost no one in the state's political establishment is willing to answer directly: what would genuine misalignment between child safety and economic growth actually require policymakers to sacrifice?

The honest answer begins with acknowledging that the business models Cox condemns and the economic development he celebrates are not merely adjacent. They are, in many cases, the same activity viewed from different angles. Meta's data centres process the same algorithmic recommendation systems that HB 464 identifies as causing adverse mental health outcomes in children. Google's computing infrastructure powers the same engagement optimisation that keeps adolescents scrolling past the curfew hours SB 194 attempted to enforce. The AI models that Creekstone's Delta Gigasite will train and serve are, in significant part, the same models whose deployment Utah's transparency legislation seeks to regulate.

Genuine sacrifice would mean accepting that some categories of AI development are incompatible with child safety and refusing to host them, even at the cost of losing investment to competing states. It would mean conditioning data centre tax incentives on compliance with child safety standards, not merely at the point of consumer interaction, but at the level of model design and training data. It would mean treating the development and deployment of AI as a continuum rather than maintaining the convenient fiction that the forge bears no responsibility for the sword.

It would also mean confronting the energy and environmental costs honestly. The nuclear infrastructure that Operation Gigawatt promises is at least a decade away from delivering meaningful power. TerraPower's plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming, the only firm nuclear project in Rocky Mountain Power's portfolio, will not come online until around 2032, and Utah will share its projected 500 megawatts with other western states. Holtec's SMR-300 reactors in Brigham City are even further out. In the interim, Utah's data centres will run overwhelmingly on natural gas, with the Novva data campus in West Jordan going so far as to request a presidential exemption from the Clean Air Act to operate diesel generators while its natural gas plant is completed. Residents near Joule's Millard County site will hear the equivalent of more than 400 semi-trucks idling around the clock, producing emissions year-round.

The “pro-human” framing allows these contradictions to coexist by promising that the harms are temporary and the benefits permanent: nuclear power will eventually replace natural gas, AI-ready workers will thrive in the new economy, and robust regulation will tame the technology's worst impulses. It is a compelling narrative. It is also one that depends on outcomes that have not yet materialised and on regulatory mechanisms that courts have already begun to dismantle.

Substance, Symbolism, and the Gap Between Them

To its credit, Utah's approach contains real substance that distinguishes it from mere performance. The regulatory sandbox model, whatever its limitations, represents a genuine attempt to learn from AI deployment rather than simply permitting it. The child safety bills, even when blocked by courts, have articulated legal theories that other states are building upon. Governor Cox's willingness to defy a White House of his own party on the question of state regulatory authority is not trivial. When he told the Politico Governors Summit, “States must help protect children and families while America accelerates its leadership in AI,” he was staking out a position with real political costs.

Representative Fiefia has framed the dynamic with precision: “There's been a narrative that's out there around AI that you either have innovation or you have safety, and you can't have both at the same time. I think there's a way to thread that needle.” The question is whether threading the needle is the same as solving the problem. A threaded needle holds fabric together; it does not change the fabric's nature.

The fabric, in this case, is an economic model in which the social media and AI companies that generate documented harms to children are also among the largest investors in the energy and computing infrastructure that Utah is actively courting. Meta is expanding in Eagle Mountain. Google owns 300 acres there. The data centres being built in Millard County will serve the same AI ecosystem whose consumer-facing products trigger the very harms Utah's legislature has spent three years trying to address.

A framework that regulates the use of these technologies while subsidising their development is not a contradiction in the logical sense. Both things can be true simultaneously: AI can create genuine economic value and AI can harm children. But the framework becomes something closer to managed contradiction when the economic incentives that reward development are orders of magnitude larger than the penalties that punish misuse. A $5,000 civil penalty for failing to disclose AI usage is not in the same moral universe as a 50 per cent tax rebate on hundreds of millions of dollars of data centre investment.

Ten Gigawatts of Unresolved Questions

What makes Utah's experiment genuinely important is that it is happening at all. Most states are not even attempting to articulate a coherent framework for AI governance. They are either passing no legislation or passing legislation that the federal government promptly threatens to preempt. Utah is doing something more ambitious and, consequently, more revealing. It is attempting to build a pro-human AI agenda inside an economic structure that is fundamentally organised around accelerating AI deployment.

The $10 million investment in AI-ready workforce development is real. So are the $750 million in private investment flowing into Brigham City's nuclear ecosystem. The poll numbers showing 90 per cent of Utah voters supporting AI safety regulation are real. So are the tax exemptions that make Utah competitive in the race for data centre investment. These are not contradictions that can be resolved through better messaging or more precise legislative drafting. They are contradictions that reflect a genuine structural problem in American technology governance: the entities that create the most powerful technologies are also the entities with the most economic leverage over the communities that host them.

The honest version of “pro-human AI” would not pretend these tensions do not exist. It would name them, measure them, and create mechanisms for democratic accountability when child safety and economic growth genuinely conflict. It would require that data centre incentives include enforceable conditions tied to the downstream behaviour of the AI systems those centres support. It would treat transparency not as a disclosure requirement that applies only when a consumer thinks to ask, but as a structural obligation embedded in the business relationship between the state and the companies it subsidises.

Utah is not there yet. No state is. But the distance between where Utah stands and where genuine “pro-human” governance would require it to go is the distance between a political brand and a binding commitment. Closing that gap would require sacrifices that no state, and no governor, has yet been willing to make: turning away investment that fails to meet safety standards, conditioning tax benefits on verifiable child safety outcomes, and accepting that some forms of economic growth are not worth their human cost.

The data centres will be built. The nuclear reactors, eventually, will follow. The question that Utah has raised, whether a state can simultaneously serve as an engine of AI expansion and a guardian of the humans that expansion affects, remains genuinely unanswered. The answer will not come from summits, initiatives, or branding exercises. It will come from the moments when the state must choose between a tax dollar and a child's safety, and what it does when nobody is looking.

---

References & Sources

1. Deseret News. “Gov. Cox launches Utah's pro-human AI initiative at 2025 AI Summit.” Deseret News, 2 December 2025. https://www.deseret.com/business/2025/12/02/gov-cox-announces-utah-pro-human-ai-initiative/

2. The Salt Lake Tribune. “Utah will push for 'pro-human' AI, Gov. Cox announces, as Trump backs ban on state regulations.” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2 December 2025. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/12/02/pro-human-ai-utah-gov-cox/

3. Utah Legislature. “S.B. 149 Artificial Intelligence Amendments.” 2024 General Session. https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/SB0149.html

4. IAPP. “Private-sector AI bill clears Utah Legislature.” IAPP, March 2024. https://iapp.org/news/a/utah-brings-gen-ai-into-consumer-protection-realm-with-bill-passage

5. KUER. “Trump is pressuring Utah on an AI bill. Gov. Cox says states should lead on policy.” KUER, 19 February 2026. https://www.kuer.org/politics-government/2026-02-19/trump-is-pressuring-utah-on-an-ai-bill-gov-cox-says-states-should-lead-on-policy

6. StateScoop. “Utah governor announces 'pro-human' AI plan, condemns federal preemption scheme.” StateScoop, December 2025. https://statescoop.com/utah-gov-spencer-cox-pro-human-ai-plan/

7. Axios. “Scoop: White House pressures Utah lawmaker to kill AI transparency bill.” Axios, 15 February 2026. https://www.axios.com/2026/02/15/white-house-utah-ai-transparency-bill

8. Deseret News. “Utah lawmakers respond to Trump White House memo on AI bill.” Deseret News, 17 February 2026. https://www.deseret.com/politics/2026/02/17/utah-legislature-responds-to-trump-administration-letter-targeting-state-regulations-for-artificial-intelligence/

9. Deseret News. “Will Trump administration allow Utah AI child protection law?” Deseret News, 22 January 2026. https://www.deseret.com/politics/2026/01/22/utah-legislature-supports-bill-to-force-ai-chatbots-to-care-about-kids-it-might-conflict-with-trump-executive-order-on-state-ai-regulations/

10. The Salt Lake Tribune. “Utah's data centers may consume quadruple the energy currently used in the state.” The Salt Lake Tribune, 9 February 2026. https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2026/02/09/utahs-data-centers-may-consume/

11. KSL. “World's largest data center campus could be coming to central Utah.” KSL.com, 2025. https://www.ksl.com/article/51355852/worlds-largest-data-center-campus-could-be-coming-to-central-utah

12. Power Magazine. “Utah Groups Look at Nuclear Options to Power World's Largest Data Center Site.” Power Magazine, December 2025. https://www.powermag.com/utah-groups-look-at-nuclear-options-to-power-worlds-largest-data-center-site/

13. BusinessWire. “Creekstone Energy, EnergySolutions Partner for Opportunity to Provide Nuclear Power for AI, Data-Infrastructure Demand.” BusinessWire, 11 December 2025. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20251211115059/en/Creekstone-Energy-EnergySolutions-Partner-for-Opportunity-to-Provide-Nuclear-Power-for-AI-Data-Infrastructure-Demand

14. Governor Spencer J. Cox. “NEWS RELEASE: Gov. Cox unveils 'Operation Gigawatt.'” Governor's Office, October 2024. https://governor.utah.gov/press/news-release-gov-cox-unveils-operation-gigawatt/

15. Fox 13 Now. “'Operation Gigawatt' to boost Utah's energy supply with nuclear, geothermal power.” Fox 13, 2024. https://www.fox13now.com/news/politics/operation-gigawatt-to-boost-utahs-energy-supply-with-nuclear-geothermal-power

16. Deseret News. “Gov. Spencer Cox announces major nuclear energy hub in Utah.” Deseret News, 17 November 2025. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2025/11/17/gov-cox-announces-site-for-utah-nuclear-power-plant/

17. NucNet. “Utah Announces Plans To Deploy Up To 10 Holtec Small Modular Reactors.” NucNet, November 2025. https://www.nucnet.org/news/utah-announces-plans-to-deploy-up-to-10-holtec-small-modular-reactors-11-2-2025

18. First Amendment Center. “Federal judge temporarily blocks Utah social media law aimed at protecting children.” Middle Tennessee State University, September 2024. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-utah-social-media-law-aimed-at-protecting-children/

19. Utah News Dispatch. “Judge blocks Utah's social media laws, writing they likely violate the First Amendment.” Utah News Dispatch, 11 September 2024. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/09/11/judge-blocks-utah-social-media-law/

20. Byte Back Law. “Utah Legislature Repeals and Replaces Utah Social Media Regulation Act.” Byte Back, March 2024. https://www.bytebacklaw.com/2024/03/utah-legislature-repeals-and-replaces-utah-social-media-regulation-act/

21. Institute for Family Studies. “Americans Want A.I. Safeguards By a 9-to-1 Margin.” IFS, 2025. https://ifstudies.org/blog/americans-want-ai-safeguards-by-a-9-to-1-margin

22. Institute for Family Studies. “Utah Poll: Voters in the Beehive State Want AI Safeguards.” IFS, January 2026. https://ifstudies.org/blog/utah-poll-voters-in-the-beehive-state-want-ai-safeguards

23. Good Jobs First. “Cloudy with a Loss of Spending Control: How Data Centers Are Endangering State Budgets.” Good Jobs First, April 2025. https://goodjobsfirst.org/cloudy-with-a-loss-of-spending-control-how-data-centers-are-endangering-state-budgets/

24. Good Jobs First. “Cloudy Data, Costly Deals: How Poorly States Disclose Data Center Subsidies.” Good Jobs First, November 2025. https://goodjobsfirst.org/cloudy-data-costly-deals-how-poorly-states-disclose-data-center-subsidies/

25. NPR. “Whistleblower's testimony has resurfaced Facebook's Instagram problem.” NPR, 5 October 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043194385/whistleblowers-testimony-facebook-instagram

26. CNN. “Meta ignored warnings on Instagram's harm to teens, whistleblower says.” CNN, 7 November 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/07/tech/meta-ignored-warnings-instagrams-harm

27. Transparency Coalition AI. “TCAI Bill Guide: Utah's HB 286, the AI Transparency Act.” Transparency Coalition, 2026. https://www.transparencycoalition.ai/news/tcai-bill-guide-utahs-hb-286-the-ai-transparency-act

28. KSL. “Deadly AI relationships with children? One Utah lawmaker wants to make it illegal.” KSL.com, 2026. https://www.ksl.com/article/51437202/deadly-ai-relationships-with-children-one-utah-lawmaker-wants-to-make-it-illegal

29. Latitude Media. “Utah is taking a different approach to new data center load.” Latitude Media, 2025. https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/utah-is-taking-a-different-approach-to-new-data-center-load/

30. Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity. “Unleashing the Power of AI. Utah's Pro-Human Leadership.” State of Utah, 2025. https://business.utah.gov/news/unleashing-the-power-of-ai-utahs-pro-human-leadership/

31. Libertas Institute. “HB 286: Government Overreach in AI Development.” Libertas Institute, 2026. https://libertas.institute/bill/hb-286-government-overreach-in-ai-development/

32. CNBC. “In race to attract data centers, states can forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to tech companies.” CNBC, 20 June 2025. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/20/tax-breaks-for-tech-giants-data-centers-mean-less-income-for-states.html

33. Nextgov/FCW. “Republican governor asserts states' right to legislate AI.” Nextgov/FCW, 19 February 2026. https://www.nextgov.com/artificial-intelligence/2026/02/republican-governor-asserts-states-right-legislate-ai/411530/

34. Inside Privacy. “Utah Repeals and Replaces Social Media Regulation Act.” Inside Privacy, March 2024. https://www.insideprivacy.com/social-media/utah-repeals-and-replaces-social-media-regulation-act/

35. Grist. “Can you build data centers in a desert without draining the water supply? Utah is finding out.” Grist, January 2026. https://grist.org/technology/utah-data-center-water-supply-meta-novva/

36. The Salt Lake Tribune. “Can Utah become a data center hub without draining its water supply?” The Salt Lake Tribune, 12 January 2026. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2026/01/12/does-utah-have-enough-water-be/

37. Utah News Dispatch. “Bill to force data centers to publicly disclose water use advances.” Utah News Dispatch, 23 January 2026. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2026/01/23/bill-to-force-data-centers-to-publicly-disclose-water-use-advances/

38. Courthouse News Service. “Utah urges 10th Circuit to reinstate social media law for minors.” Courthouse News, November 2025. https://www.courthousenews.com/utah-urges-10th-circuit-to-reinstate-social-media-law-for-minors/

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

In Summary: * Happy Texas Independence Day! It was fun following the Texas Rangers this afternoon as they played and won against the Cleveland Guardians. I'm listening now to the pregame show being broadcast by the Blue Devils Sports Network ahead of tonight's men's basketball between Duke and NC State. This will be my game before bedtime. When it ends I'll finish my night prayers and put myself to bed.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night. Details of that regimen are linked to my link tree, which is linked to my profile page here.

Starting Ash Wednesday, 2026, I've added this daily prayer as part of the Prayer Crusade Preceding the 2026 SSPX Episcopal Consecrations.

Health Metrics: * bw= 229.83 * bp= 137/80 (67)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups

Diet: * o6:05 – 1 banana, 2 HEB Bakery cookies * 08:00 – 1 small bowl of seafood salad * 12:00 – rice cake, 1 ham & cheese sandwich * 14:00 – home made beef and vegetable soup

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 04:00 – listen to local news talk radio * 04:50 – bank accounts activity monitored * 05:00 – read, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, and nap. * 13:45 – prayerfully reading the Pre-1955 Mass Propers for Monday of the Second Week of Lent – March 02, 2026 * 14:30 – follow the Rangers vs. Guardians MLB Spring Training Game * 16:45 – listen to relaxing music * 17:35 – Listening to the pregame show on the Blue Devils Sports Network ahead of their men's basketball tonight vs the North Carolina St. Wolfpack

Chess: * 13:10 – moved in all pending CC games

Det har aldrig varit enklare att känna sig trygg med sina filer. Bilder laddas upp automatiskt, dokument sparas i bakgrunden och nya enheter synkroniseras på några sekunder. Molnlagring har gjort säkerhetskopiering till något som nästan verkar osynligt. För många känns det som att problemet med backup är löst en gång för alla.

Men den känslan förtjänar att granskas. Vad är det egentligen som händer när våra filer sparas i molnet? Är synkronisering samma sak som en säkerhetskopia? Och vilka risker finns kvar trots att vi lämnat externa hårddiskar och manuella kopieringar bakom oss?

Den här artikeln undersöker om molntjänster verkligen gör att vi kan sluta tänka på backup, eller om de bara har förändrat vad vi behöver tänka på.

Känslan av att allt bara finns där

Det är lätt att förstå varför många känner att backup är ett löst problem. När bilder automatiskt laddas upp till Google Photos, dokument sparas i Microsoft OneDrive och filer synkas via Dropbox uppstår en känsla av trygghet. Allt ligger ju i molnet. Om datorn kraschar, blir stulen eller tappas i golvet finns filerna kvar.

Molnlagring har utan tvekan förändrat hur vi hanterar data. Förr krävdes externa hårddiskar, USB-minnen och manuell kopiering. Backup var ett aktivt projekt. I dag sker synkronisering i bakgrunden, utan att vi behöver göra något. Det skapar en upplevelse av att säkerhetskopiering är inbyggd och automatisk.

Men frågan är om molnlagring verkligen är samma sak som backup.

Synkronisering är inte detsamma som säkerhetskopiering

En central missuppfattning är att synkade filer automatiskt innebär skydd mot alla typer av förlust. I praktiken fungerar många molntjänster som speglingar. Om du raderar en fil på din dator raderas den även i molnet. Om du skriver över ett dokument med fel version synkas den nya versionen direkt.

Det betyder att molnet i många fall reproducerar misstag lika effektivt som det skyddar mot hårdvarufel. Råkar du ta bort en mapp och tömma papperskorgen kan den försvinna överallt. Vissa tjänster erbjuder versionshistorik och möjlighet att återställa raderade filer, men dessa funktioner har ofta tidsbegränsningar eller kräver särskilda abonnemang.

Backup i klassisk mening innebär att det finns en separat kopia som inte påverkas direkt av förändringar i originalet. Den kopian ska kunna återställas även om användaren själv gjort ett misstag. Molnsynk är något annat.

Skydd mot hårdvara men inte mot allt

Molntjänster är mycket effektiva när det gäller att skydda mot fysiska risker. Om en dator går sönder, en telefon tappas bort eller ett kontor drabbas av brand finns filerna kvar på servrar som drivs av stora aktörer med avancerade säkerhetssystem. Här är molnet överlägset den gamla modellen med en enda lokal hårddisk.

Men riskbilden har förändrats snarare än försvunnit. I stället för att oroa sig för trasiga diskar behöver användare fundera över kontosäkerhet. Om någon får tillgång till ditt konto kan de radera eller manipulera filer. Om du själv tappar åtkomsten till ditt konto kan det bli svårt att återfå tillgången till materialet.

Det finns också juridiska och kommersiella dimensioner. Användare är beroende av att leverantören fortsätter erbjuda tjänsten på rimliga villkor. Även om det är ovanligt att stora plattformar stänger ner helt, har mindre tjänster genom åren lagts ner eller förändrat sina villkor.

Versionshantering och återställning som kompromiss

Många moderna molntjänster försöker kombinera synk och backup genom versionshistorik. Det innebär att tidigare versioner av ett dokument sparas under en viss tid. Om något går fel kan man rulla tillbaka till en tidigare version.

Det är en viktig funktion, men den har begränsningar. Tidsperioden kan vara begränsad till 30 dagar eller ett visst antal versioner. Om ett problem upptäcks sent kan återställningsmöjligheten vara borta. Dessutom är funktionen ofta beroende av att användaren själv aktivt går in och återställer.

För privatpersoner kan detta vara tillräckligt skydd i många situationer. För företag, där dataförlust kan få stora ekonomiska konsekvenser, är det sällan tillräckligt. Där används ofta separata backup-system utöver molnlagringen.

Ransomware och den nya hotbilden

En särskild risk är skadlig kod som krypterar filer, så kallad ransomware. Om infekterade filer synkas till molnet kan även molnkopian påverkas. Vissa molntjänster kan återställa tidigare versioner, men processen är inte alltid enkel och kräver snabb upptäckt.

Det visar att molnet inte är en magisk säkerhetszon. Det är en del av samma ekosystem som resten av dina enheter. Om en enhet komprometteras kan effekterna spridas genom synkronisering.

Bekvämlighetens pris

Det är tydligt att molnlagring har gjort backup enklare och mer tillgänglig. Många människor som tidigare inte gjorde några säkerhetskopior alls har nu åtminstone ett grundläggande skydd mot tekniska haverier. Det är en enorm förbättring jämfört med tidigare.

Samtidigt har bekvämligheten skapat en känsla av total säkerhet som inte alltid stämmer. När allt sker automatiskt minskar medvetenheten om riskerna. Backup blir något vi antar finns, snarare än något vi aktivt planerar.

Den klassiska principen om flera oberoende kopior, gärna på olika platser och i olika system, är fortfarande relevant. Molnlagring kan vara en del av den strategin, men ersätter den inte helt.

Så slipper vi tänka, men bör inte sluta

Molntjänster för lagring har utan tvekan förändrat vår relation till backup. De har gjort det möjligt att skydda sig mot de vanligaste tekniska problemen utan särskild ansträngning. För många användare innebär det att risken för total dataförlust har minskat drastiskt.

Men att vi kan sluta tänka på backup är en illusion. Molnet är ett kraftfullt verktyg, inte en garanti. Skillnaden mellan synkronisering och verklig säkerhetskopiering är avgörande. Den som förstår den skillnaden har betydligt bättre förutsättningar att skydda sitt digitala liv.