Utah residents urge a public voice in major AI infrastructure decisions
A proposed Utah datacentre, more than twice the size of Manhattan, has prompted concerns about energy use, water supplies and the Great Salt Lake ecosystem, as well as anger that residents had little say. The authors argue that the dispute shows why the public should help shape decisions about AI and its infrastructure, especially as the technology affects schools, workplaces and public services.
In September, 38 residents selected by civic lottery took part in a Utah assembly and made 10 recommendations, each backed by at least 82% of participants. They included public hearings and independent environmental reviews for very large datacentres, community AI education and stronger transparency rules. The authors say this local effort could feed into a wider network of citizens’ assemblies, including a proposed US national assembly in 2028 and global discussions on AI governance, but argue that public participation needs lasting civic support and decision-makers with a duty to respond.
- Utah residents backed 10 proposals for greater public oversight of AI.
- All recommendations received at least 82% support.
- The authors want citizens’ assemblies linked to accountable decision-makers.
New here? Start with this
AI systems run on data centres: large facilities full of computers that need substantial electricity and cooling. Proposals to build them can affect nearby communities through demands on power and water supplies, land use and the environment.
In Utah, residents raised concerns about a proposed centre’s possible effects on energy, water and the Great Salt Lake ecosystem, as well as how little influence they had over the decision. A citizens’ assembly brought together 38 residents selected by civic lottery to discuss the issues and make recommendations.
Citizens’ assemblies are groups of people chosen to reflect a wider population who hear evidence and discuss public questions. The Utah recommendations included public hearings, independent environmental reviews and better information about AI; how much they influence decisions depends on whether officials are expected to consider and respond to them.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Major AI infrastructure can affect local energy and water supplies, ecosystems and public services, so residents have a legitimate stake in decisions made in their communities. Citizens’ assemblies, public hearings and independent reviews can bring informed public scrutiny to complex proposals, build trust and help ensure that benefits and costs are openly weighed.
The case against
Large infrastructure projects also require timely, technically informed decisions, and adding formal public processes could delay investment or make planning less predictable. A small citizens’ assembly may not represent every affected group, while elected officials and regulators already have mandates to weigh local concerns alongside wider needs such as reliable energy, economic development and AI capacity.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Guardian as “AI overlords say they want to democratise their technology. Here’s how | Richard Wilson and Clara Long”.