|
Lynn, Leicester
I think the rapid pace of AI development is outpacing our ability to safeguard the human beings whose jobs and economic stability will be affected. Workers cannot adapt to the changes being made so quickly and there isn't time for retraining. I believe millions of families will find their economic stability affected, yet the corporations pushing the technology so fast will not be so affected. Human beings need steady employment in order to live and provide for their families. Secondly, I believe that compounding this instability is the fact that Americans have an erosion of trust in authority and information, particularly in this current administration. It is so difficult now to decipher what is real and what is not and we have so much automated misinformation. There are not enough guardrails for AI technology and there certainly is not enough transparent guidance from the government.
David, Barre
I think the adoption of the tech is inevitable and will be massively transformative in positive ways for many industries as well as general quality of life for Vermonters and Americans at large. However, there are very significant concerns around data and real-world privacy (e.g. flock cameras, etc.) as well as the impacts on job replacement. I would like to see both the state of VT and the federal government taking preemptive steps as quickly as possible to install robust personal privacy legislation (e.g. restriction of facial recognition and tracking technologies in public, etc.), restrictions on the use of fallible AI models in law enforcement applications, and investing in re-/up-skilling people in jobs at risk of being replaced by AI. While this is not necessarily AI-specific, I also think passing legislation and investing in infrastructure strengthening worker's rights and labor unions should be a priority. These concerns should have bipartisan support, as the effects of AI technology are not a red/blue state issue, but are an existential concern for humanity writ large.
Jon, Fletcher
You propose that a significant part of the profits from AI go to "the American people". In this case it will be in the financial interest of the American people to support AI enthusiastically, because the success of AI will reduce their taxes. But this may not be in the best interest of the American people, who could benefit from an AI slow down. So your proposal seems inconsistent with other parts of your message. A model to think about is Venezuela, which relies on oil money to support its government. That government supports Big Oil to the detriment of Venezuela's own people, because of this misaligned incentive. I understand your not wanting the profits from AI to just go to the wealthy, but be careful not to end up aligning the government with AI. A more thoughtful solution needs to be created.
Charlotte, East Montpelier
I look back at the Manhattan Project and ponder what would it have been like if the development of nuclear power for weaponry had been in the hands of competitive private companies. I believe we should be looking at the development of AI as the equivalent of the smashing of the atom and control it with similar tight boundaries. It is not that the U.S. government is always acting in the best interests of all people because it doesn't. But the government can be reigned in and made to do what is best for most people, with the caveat of: as long there are honest and reputable and caring people elected to run said government.
Virginia, Brattleboro
I completely agree with your concerns. And at the same time I am strongly affected on an emotional as well as an intellectual level by the way that AI can respond to my questions, ideas, and feelings. So even with the minimal amount of time I've spent with it, I feel attached to its possibilities and hooked by having it available. I don't have an AI "friend" and don't want one, but I can well understand how this kind of relationship can develop and how powerful it could be to influence choices and behavior, especially for young people. I'm wondering if citizens' councils could be set up as a way of involving random people in government-sponsored discussions of what we want AI to be and how we want it to be controlled. I know they have been useful in certain situations, mostly in other countries, to consider topics of critical importance to citizens and to make recommendations to the existing government.
Rachel, Waterbury
We need to develop guidelines and keep them changing as advances are made. I am already outraged that when I receive an email, AI has already summarized the conversation and generated a reply. I consider this an uninvited invasion of my privacy and I am not seeing any news focusing on this. Again, regulation is needed to curb this aggressive unwelcome application. Finally, the companies developing data centers need to be regulating the content being stored in these centers, as well as developing centers which do not drain the natural resources where they are located.
Patrick, Essex Junction
This technology is costing us more than the electricity, the material resources, and the land and water use. It's costing us human connection. Experts are ignored while chatbots benefit from their work. Family recipes are harvested and mutated instead of taught from generation to generation. Humans are social creatures, and to integrate this technology into society before we know all the costs is foolhardy at best and actively destructive at worst.
Luke, Burlington
As an educator, I feel that Big Tech's push in AI seeks to further the addictions they've already created with social media. I support the moratorium on data centers, and want to see the tech industry more heavily regulated.
Zavier, Northfield
AI isn't anything new. The way we're treating LLMs/Generative AI is a major over-reaction to prop up a bloated tech sector. We need to protect our communities from billionaire bubble-making and make sure automation benefits us all. We need diversity in AI again, the bubble needs to pop and all the machine learning talent being hoarded by big tech needs the chance to develop real breakthroughs with robust public funding and support. Vermont needs to be a forefront of digital rights and protections to guarantee a free and open internet where local artists, business people, writers, journalists, activists can interact and share freely without their thoughts, work, and effort being stolen by big tech to create an automated replacement.
Patrick, Georgia
I share your concern that decisions of this scale are being made by a handful of firms with little public accountability. Perhaps instead of a national moratorium, we should be looking at requirements for data centers to be only powered by purpose built renewable energy and not use water supplies otherwise intended for people or agriculture? I would also urge attention to harms already here. AI is entering school systems, benefits determinations, and child protection screening in Vermont now, and AI-generated sexual imagery is reaching Vermont children now. None of it is addressed by a data center pause. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and keep fighting the good fight.
Colchester
I am opposed to AI because of its environmental impact. I believe that climate change is in such a place where we need to do everything possible to heal the Earth and try to make amends for at least some of the mistakes we made. AI should not be used until we know that it is no longer contributing to the climate crisis. Then we can discuss the ethics. Then we can discuss who should use it and when. But for now, AI is a threat to the environment and must be stopped.
Randolph
In addition to your concerns and suggested guard rails, I am concerned that AI will be used to wage war. AI guided drones are already being used in Ukraine. This is every bit as frightening as the nuclear arms race.
Jack, St. Johnsbury
While AI *may* have a transformative place in medicine and other advanced uses for the public good, unfettered access by the general public has resulted in the pollution of our water, undue distress of our national electric grids, elevated energy costs for taxpayers, and noise & light pollution from data centers. Aside from AI's detrimental impact on American infrastructure, the natural environment, and our physical health, the negative impact on American mental health, intelligence, and education cannot be overstated. If we don't act soon to restrict AI usage, generations of young Vermonters will grow up with unfettered access to platforms that undermine their problem-solving skills, their capacity for critical thought, their creativity, and their inherent curiosity. In short, our current approach to AI use & access is an attack on the very things that make Vermont Vermont and make Vermonters Vermonters.
John, Vernon
I do not feel using AI actually helps us. It is reducing the amount people have to think and reason (which will in the long run hurt our society). It has already started taking jobs away from us. It is a really good tool to spread propaganda. It is being abused in art and entertainment. It is using people's likenesses and placing words in their mouths. Just look and see how much the current president is using it to make fake videos to spread his lies and propaganda. The damage outweighs the benefit. On top of that the data centers are costing the local communities by increasing the residents' electrical bills and creating noise pollution, while not providing many local jobs. In my opinion, this is a fad that the tech giants want just to make money while the tool does not benefit us in any way. Do not allow the data centers to be built. Turn off AI.
Elissa, Norwich
We need a data center moratorium NOW. We should be thinking FIRST about climate/environment, not further eroding what remains of our planet-home with data centers and AI that we don't fully understand. Certainly, there must be representation on governing boards that include members of the public. The 'tech bros' working in silos just reinforce their own lust for money and power. I noticed in today's NYTimes, reference to the first fully autonomous drone — killed 3 in Ukraine (Russian drone, NO human oversight). This is from that Times story: "A fully autonomous Russian AI drone powered by a commercially available Nvidia minicomputer killed three Ukrainian civilians during an attack on a gas station in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine. According to an investigative report by The New York Times, the strike occurred on July 6, 2026, and marks the first documented case in the war where civilian fatalities were caused by a weapon that selected its target entirely through artificial intelligence without human intervention." We can live w/o this technology — have managed w/o it for millennia. I have found nothing associated with AI development of any particular benefit to me or my family. Waste of time and money. What we cannot live w/o is a healthy planet/environment. Our focus on such rapid development of tech/AI is misplaced, particularly at a time when politics and human conditions around the globe are so unstable.
Kristen, St. Albans
My partner was laid off from not one, but TWO jobs last year because the first company basically thought they could replace him with AI, and the second company could not support his position because they lost client business due to AI. I absolutely do NOT think that AI technology should benefit just a few tech oligarchs. I would 100% support a redistribution of the wealth generated from the oligarchs to the people. I want to see AI technology developed safely and ethically, so that everyone can maybe work less, because we are not cogs in a machine, who exist solely to generate wealth for the few.
Elena, Hartford
I am a parent of two young children and when I think of AI, I think of their futures and what AI might mean for them in 10, 20, 50 years. It scares me. I'm not someone who shies away from technology but the speed at which AI is moving and the complete lack of oversight is really frightening. Not much surprises me these days but the fact that these huge (profit-seeking-at-all-costs) companies are left alone to do what they please with a technology that threatens our very existence is a new low. But, I have to remain hopeful as a parent.
Rick, Post Mills
I agree that a nationwide moratorium on construction of data centers is ostensibly a good start. However, to be useful, such a moratorium should be tied to specific policy objectives concerning regulation, transparency, disclosure, and (most importantly) giving citizens agency over how much AI we are exposed to and how much of our personal information and communication is collected and fed into these models. I also agree with the concept of creation of a national wealth fund to share in the proceeds of this grand new venture that is built on our collective contributions to culture and commerce. I would be interested to see this idea translated into an actual nuts-and-bolts program.
Marshfield
I work for a national life insurance company. We are encouraged to use AI, although we have been taught to do so with care because AI CAN BE WRONG. In my specific position, I actually cannot use AI much due to possible violations of personally identifying information or HIPAA violations. I am careful; but there are many others in the world, and specifically in our country who are NOT. This concerns me, this possibility of using AI to wrongfully harm others who are not liked due to their race, religion, gender etc. Additionally, I have watched AI being used in media to sculpt peoples' opinions about others, in incorrect ways. I have watched artists, like photographers, have to battle against people using AI to create images of things and steal their photos to adjust and claim as their own. With all of this, I feel that we should NOT be embracing AI as fully as we have already.
Mark, Swanton
I don’t give a Rats Ass about AI or any Data center or self driving vehicles.
Brattleboro
Too fast, too big, too arrogant — the big three and a few others. I like the idea of a moratorium on data centers, especially as we experience the effects of climate change. I am not so sure I like the idea of board members nominated by Congress. Not enough detail in the description, but is a nominee board member allowed to vote their conscience or must vote and act per the wishes of the nominating legislator? AI is not as capable or scary actually as the big three like to pretend. AI consumers in the business world will either buy AI from US firms, or elsewhere — like from China.
Montpelier
I have seen little evidence that these so-called AI technologies will have long-term benefits to the general public. The overarching themes I’ve seen revolve around how these technologies reduce our ability to think critically, while causing great harm to the environment and those who live nearby to data centers, all while threatening job security and stealing outright from creative professionals. At the very minimum, these technologies need to be slowed and regulated, though my personal preference would be that we abandon this technology altogether.
Stowe
AI is the next big step for mankind. To stand in its path while the rest of the world advances would be foolish. It must be harnessed responsibly.
Melissa, Cornwall
I think AI is beneficial in some ways like learning to do things, like it taught me how to code. I think that for every two dollars they spend on an AI data center they should put one dollar into manufacturing consumer computer parts like RAM, storage, and GPUs.
Brian, Burlington
AI feels like it’s being forced down our throats at a pace that is too fast for building in the proper safeguards. We have a child on the way and I am deeply troubled by the world they are entering. We know the things that make life meaningful and joyful, time with friends/family/community, fair compensation for work worth doing, health & safety, and a clean environment. NOTHING about the current rollout of AI indicates that the people in charge are taking steps to protect these things. Instead it's been a tidal wave of wishful/fanciful marketing about what it could do for people with no real accountability for the harms it's ALREADY CAUSING! The handful of billionaires running these platforms are at best greedy for even more profit and at worst acting unhinged and flippant about the potential existential threat to life AI poses. We need a moratorium until the people's representatives can put in place safeguards for the wellbeing of all. This isn't a problem everyday Americans can fix on their own, it's the responsibility of our government as the only entity big enough to take on these enormous corporations and the psychopaths running them. No single individual human should have more wealth than the smallest nation's GDP. No private company should be more powerful than any single nation state.
Siegel, Saint Johnsbury
AI is to the 21st century what electricity was to the 19th — and we should treat it accordingly: as a regulated utility. This could mandate universal access; limit cost and profits; control infrastructure investment, including not just sources of capital but also environmental considerations; and yet...encourage managed development. The sovereign wealth fund is a good idea, but also an admission of the failure of the tax system: since we cannot collect appropriate taxes from either these individuals or the corporations they control, we should go directly to sharing the profits. And, our tax system is so obviously broken, so why not? But, let's make sure we limit the uses of such a sovereign wealth fund to financing Social Security and universal health care.
Randolph
Generative AI is nothing more than a prediction engine trained on unfathomable amounts of stolen work from all of humanity. The only reason it's "transformative" is we let tech companies continue to steal the work of all of humanity and then sell it back to us. The only reasonable thing to do here is to stop enabling them to steal the collective works of all of humanity in order to sell us slop and put us all out of work in the process. If we simply forced them to respect existing copyright there would be no viable business model. If we simply forced them to pay the cost of burning down the planet with polluting data centers there would be no viable business model. Nobody wants this except for tech bosses who ran out of new territory to strip mine. We should not be throwing away the future of the planet and the collective works of all of humanity just so a few CEOs can get even richer. Regulate these ghouls. Hold them to existing laws, hold them to existing expectations of energy use, hold them to account for what they are doing which is stealing from the collective commons in order to sell everything back to us. There is no "AGI". That's smoke and mirrors sold to the public by tech bosses who are trying to capture all of humanity's labor. This is just automated slop at an industrial scale. If I were to get my way the technology would be banned and tech companies would be forced to pay for all of the stolen labor and works they vacuumed up, and everyone who lost their job, couldn't afford to replace a computer or had their power bill go through the roof would be compensated from massive fines against these companies for stealing everything from us. Said again: this "technology" is only "transformative" because we're letting them get away with all of this! Stop letting them skirt laws, social contracts and steal from all of us just to sell it all back to us!
Kathleen, Essex Junction
We do not want data centers in Vermont! They're forcing it into every aspect of our lives and we don’t want this, it’s terrible for the environment!
Travis, Hinesburg
We should focus on education and training. AI is a powerful tool and can dramatically improve productivity in certain areas. In its current form it requires a lot of domain knowledge to properly leverage which is a hurdle for many people.
Travis, Burlington
AI is here to stay even if we slow it down. There will be huge economic benefits to being part owners of this technology. So I think we should lead the way and build *sustainable* datacenters in Vermont. Solar, low water usage, quiet, capture the heat and use it for something in the winter. It's possible to do! And we can have cooperative/democratic local control of AI rather than sending all our AI dollars and control to the biggest companies in the world out of state. Sam Altman has talked about intelligence being a utility that they charge a rate to access. We might as well have a public utility! |